72. Similarly, on December 14, 2004 the Eleventh Civil Court of Pichincha, rejected the constitutional amparo suit filed by Mauro Leonidas Terán Cevallos, a dismissed member of the Constitutional Tribunal. 104 73. Also on December 15, 2004 the Tenth Civil Court of Pichincha ruled inadmissible the constitutional action of amparo brought by Simón Bolívar Zabala Guzmán, a dismissed member of the Constitutional Tribunal. 105 On the same date, the Eighth Civil Court of Pichincha ruled on the amparo suit filed by Mr. Freddy Oswaldo Cevallos Bueno, a dismissed judge of the Constitutional Tribunal. 106 C. Dismissal of the Supreme Court Justices 1. The call for a special session by the President of the Republic and the National Congress’s termination resolution 74. On December 5, 2004 the President of the Republic, Lucio Gutiérrez Borbúa, summoned the National Congress to a special session. 107 Citing Articles 133 108 and 171(8) 109 of the Constitution and Article 6 110 of the Organic Law of the Legislative Branch, the call was made in the following terms: Sole Article: The Honorable National Congress is summoned to a special session on Wednesday December 8, 2004, at 11:00, to hear and decide on the following matters: 1. Voting on the impeachment of the former members of the Constitutional Court. 2. Analysis of a resolution on the constitutional and legal situation of the judicial branch; and, 3. Voting on the amendment to the Organic Law on Elections concerning the right of minorities to proportional representation in multi-candidate elections. 111 104 Cf. Decision on amparo remedy of December 14, 2004 (File of attachments to the report, volume I, page 227). 105 Cf. Decision on amparo remedy of December 15, 2004 (File of attachments to the report, volume I, page 229). 106 Cf. Decision on amparo remedy of December 15, 2004 (File of attachments to the report, volume VII, page 2144). 107 The expert witness Torres Torres stated that “the President of the Republic’s summons to a special session was openly unconstitutional, since it infringed Articles 133 and 171 (8) of the Constitution in force at that time, which established that the convocation must indicate the specific matters to be examined during a special period of sessions, and that there were no grounds on which [the President of the Republic] could convene a special session of Congress.” Cf. Statement by expert witness Torres Torres on January 30, 2013. (Merits file, volume III, page 1335). 108 The article reads as follows: “During recess periods, the President of Congress or the President of the Republic, may convene special sessions of the National Congress, to address exclusively the specific matters indicated in the convocation. The President of the National Congress may also convene such special sessions at the request of two-thirds of its members.” Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador of August 11, 1998 (File of attachments to the answer brief, volume I, page 3328). 109 The article reads as follows: “The following shall be the powers and duties of the President of the Republic: […] 8. Convene the National Congress for special periods of sessions. The convocation shall indicate the specific matters to be examined during such periods.” Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador of August 11, 1998 (File of attachments to the answer brief, volume I, page 3333). 110 The article reads as follows: “The President of the National Congress, the President of the Republic or twothirds of the members of Congress may call for special periods of sessions. Such convocations shall be issued by means of a publication in the leading newspapers of the country, with at least twenty-four hours’ notice. When Congress is convened for a special session, it shall abide by the same rules established for its regular periods and it shall not elect new officers.” Record 24-001 of December 8, 2004 (File of attachments to the report, volume II, page 235). 111 Cf. Record 24-001 of December 8, 2004 (File of attachments to the report, volume II, page 235). 26