5 18. Regarding the obligations established by Article 2 of the American Convention, the petitioners contend that the Ecuadorian legal system does not regulate administrative sanctions for individuals or public officials who violate the Constitution. Consequently, they claim, what occurred with the Supreme Court of Justice has been repeated in recent years by those in power. They add that the Constitution does not provide for a situation in which all the justices are terminated, nor does it offer a mechanism for resolving such a situation. Neither does it offer any possibility of appeal against Congressional decisions. In addition to the above, they claim that Article 2 of the Convention was violated as a consequence of the adoption of measures in breach of the Convention, such as calling for special sessions, the termination resolution, ordering the security forces to enforce an unconstitutional decision, and the Constitutional Court’s disallowance of the amparo remedy filings. 19. Finally, during the merits stage the petitioners continued to submit arguments on the alleged violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 23 and 24 of the American Convention, even though in the admissibility phase, the Commission found that the facts described did not tend to establish violations of those provisions. 4 20. Regarding Article 23 of the Convention, they contend that Ecuador’s Constitution recognizes the right of both access to and performance of public positions and functions. In the petitioners’ view, the termination resolution adopted by the National Congress prevented them from the continued exercise of their right to perform public functions. Regarding Article 24 of the American Convention, the petitioners claim to have received different and unjustified treatment on two occasions: (i) when the National Congress maintained four Supreme Court justices in their positions, and (ii) when the resolution of the Constitutional Court left the Supreme Court justices and the Constitutional Court judges in a state of termination, as the only citizens who could not file for amparo constitutional relief to defend their human rights. According to the petitioners, no objective or reasonable grounds were given for this treatment. B. The State 21. The State disputes “all the considerations of fact and of law submitted by the petitioners.” Specifically, it contends that the arguments related to the creation of parliamentary majorities supporting the national government in order to bring about the irregular restructuring of several agencies and appoint individuals favorable to that alliance have not been proven. In the State’s words, there is no “documentary, testimonial, or indicative evidence whatsoever” of those claims, which are “simple unproven assumptions and hypotheses.” 22. The Ecuadorian State contends that the country’s last three Supreme Courts of Justice have not been immune from questions regarding their origins, composition, and operations. The State noted that those Courts’ members included “emissaries of political interests, with close ties to senior leaders of political parties or even members thereof.” In this regard, the State named both the “Court of 1997” and its successor, known as the “Pichi Court.” 5 The State acknowledged that the appointment of the “Pichi Court” was marked by “inceptional defects” but, it stressed, that did not constitute acceptance of reparable damage inflicted on the petitioners, since their termination by the National Congress was justified. 4 See: IACHR, Report No 8/07, Petition 1425-04, Admissibility, Hugo Quintana Coello and others, Justices of the Supreme Court, Ecuador, February 27, 2007, paras. 40 to 42 and operative paragraph 2. 5 in the instant case. The Commission understands that the State refers to the Supreme Court of Justice appointed in substitution of the victims