18. According to the petitioner, on November 26, 2003 his impeachment trial began with the charges lodged by the Senators, which can be found in the file before the Commission. On December 1, the Justices on trial in the impeachment proceeding presented their defense. A typed version of that is also in the Commission’s file. On December 3, 2003 the presentation of evidence was conducted, and the Senators serving as prosecutors withdrew 14 of the 20 original counts. In the case of the petitioner, Articles of impeachment 1, 2, and 4 remained regarding the following matters: statement allegedly declaring that Supreme Court appointments are for life (count 1); alleged deviation from the constitutional procedure for confirming judicial magistrates, (count 2); alleged interference in the House of Representatives’ exercise of its constitutional functions (count 4). 19. On December 12, 2003, through Resolution 134, the petitioner was found guilty of the charges against him and was therefore removed from the Court. The petitioner attached said Resolution to his petition before the Commission and states that he was removed from his post because the Senators did not agree with his judicial rulings. He points out that Resolution No. 134 which removed him from his post is completely without merit. It only refers to poor performance of his duties. 20. In light of the foregoing, on December 26, 2003 the petitioner filed an action challenging the constitutionality of Resolution 134. According to the petitioner, this constitutionality challenge, like the action challenging the constitutionality of Resolution 122, has yet to be resolved because the members of the Court disqualified themselves from ruling on it, and so far no Court has been established to hear these matters. 21. The petitioner reports that the same facts which were the subject of his impeachment trial and which led to his removal from office were the basis for a criminal complaint against him, filed by the President of the National Congress. In this regard, the petitioner made available to the IACHR a Resolution dated November 1, 2005 in which the criminal court judge dismissed those charges. The petitioner also asserts that once that complaint was dismissed, the Supreme Court asked the judge to turn over the case file. The Tribunal on Judges’ Malfeasance at its own initiative then launched an investigation of the judge and the prosecutor for the purpose of intimidating them. 22. According to the petitioner, the sole purpose of the impeachment proceedings against the Supreme Court Justices was to violate the independence of the Judicial Branch, and show that the Senators were the highest authorities on the Constitution, not the Supreme Court. 23. The petitioner maintains that the impeached Justices were subjected to discrimination, because other Justices who had signed some of the decisions that were the basis for the charges in the trial were not impeached, and they continue to serve on the Supreme Court. 24. The petitioner concludes that the removal of the Supreme Court Justices disrupted the independence of the Judicial Branch, and constituted violations of the following Articles of the American Convention: 8(1), 8(2)(c), 8(2)(d), 8(2)(f), 11, 23(1)(c), 24, and 25, with regard to Articles 1(1) (obligation to respect rights) and 2 (obligation to adopt domestic legal measures) of that Convention. In his words, “this parody of an impeachment trial for poor performance, was really nothing more than a shady deal to create vacancies in a State body, and to illegally hand out these posts to the various political parties. This is how a disruption of the Judicial Branch was caused by the Executive Branch, with the complicity of the political parties represented in Congress.” 5