I INTRODUCTION TO THE CASE AND PURPOSE OF THE DISPUTE 1. The case before the Court. – On August 2, 2011, in accordance with Articles 51 and 61 of the American Convention, the Inter-American Commission on Human rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) submitted to the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court the case of “Quintana Coello et al.” (hereinafter “brief submitting the case”) against the Republic of Ecuador (hereinafter “the State ” or “Ecuador”), concerning “the [alleged] arbitrary removal of 27 judges of the Supreme Court of Justice of Ecuador through a parliamentary resolution on December 8, 2004, in the [alleged] absence of a clear legal framework regulating the grounds and proceedings for their removal from office, and [allegedly] disregarding the constitutional norms under which they were appointed with respect to the indefinite nature of their appointment and the cooptation system as a means of filling possible vacancies.” According to the Commission, “[t]he victims were denied even minimal guarantees of due process, were not granted a hearing, and had no opportunity to defend themselves” and “[n]or was there any effective judicial remedy available to them to oppose the arbitrary action of the National Congress.” 2. Proceeding before the Commission – The proceeding before the Commission was as follows: a) Petition. – On December 30, 2004 Mr. Hugo Quintana Coello and 26 other former judges of the Supreme Court of Justice of Ecuador filed an initial complaint before the Commission; b) Admissibility Report. – On February 27, 2007 the Commission adopted Admissibility Report No. 8/07 1; c) Report on Merits. – On March 31, 2011 the Commission approved the Report on Merits No. 65/11 2, in accordance with Article 50 of the Convention (hereinafter also “the Report on Merits” or “Report No. 65/11”), in which it reached a number of conclusions and made several recommendations to the State, namely: a. Conclusions. – The Commission concluded that the State of Ecuador [was] responsible for the violation of […] Articles 8, 9 and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with the obligations set out in Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, with respect to Hugo Quintana Coello, Alfredo Contreras Villavicencio, Teodoro Coello Vásquez, Santiago Andrade Ubidia, José Julio Benítez Astudillo, Armando Bermeo Castillo, Eduardo Brito Mieles, Nicolás Castro Patiño, Galo Galarza Paz, Luis Heredia Moreno, Estuardo Hurtado Larrea, Ángel Lescano Fiallo, Galo Pico Mantilla, Jorge Ramírez Álvarez, Carlos Riofrío Corral, José Vicente Troya Jaramillo, Rodrigo Varea Áviles, Jaime Velasco Dávila, Miguel Villacís Gómez, Gonzalo Zambrano Palacios, Milton Moreno Aguirre, Arturo Donoso Castellón, Ernesto Albán Gómez, Hernán Quevedo Terán, Jorge Andrade Lara, Clotary Salinas Montaño and Armando Serrano Puig.” b. Recommendations. – Consequently, the Commission issued the following recommendations to the State: i. “Reinstate the victims in the judiciary, if they so wish, in a position similar to those that they held, with the same remuneration, social benefits and rank comparable to that they would hold today if their functions had not been terminated. If, for grounded reasons, reinstatement is not possible, the State shall pay reasonable indemnification to the victims or, where applicable, to their successors. 1 In its Report, the Commission declared the petition “admissible” and ruled itself competent to hear the complaint lodged by the petitioners with respect to the possible violation of Articles 8, 9 and 25 of the American Convention, pursuant to Articles 1(1) and 2”. Cf. Admissibility Report No. 8/07, Case 12.600, Hugo Quintana Coello and others, Ecuador, on February 27, 2007 (File of attachments to the report, volume IV, page 1387). 2 Merits Report No 65/11, Case 12.600, Hugo Quintana Coello and others “Justices of the Supreme Court of Justice”, Ecuador, March 31, 2011 (File of attachments to the report, volume I, pages 6 to 607). 4