2007. He also hand-delivered additional information when the IACHR held its 129th period of sessions in Asunción from September 5-7, 2007. The relevant parts of the petition were transmitted to the State on December 11, 2007, with a two-month deadline for submitting its observations. 6. The State sent its observations to the Commission on April 16, 2008, after requesting an extension, which was granted through March 15, 2008. The observations of the State were duly forwarded to the petitioner on April 22, 2008. 7. The petitioner sent additional observations on May 22, 2008. These observations were transmitted to the State on May 28, 2008. On December 3, 2008 the petitioner requested a hearing before the Commission on this petition. III. A. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES The petitioner 8. By way of background information, the petitioner notes that the 1992 Constitution established for the first time in Paraguay’s history that Justices on the Supreme Court are unremovable (Article 261), indicating that Supreme Court Justices may only be removed through an impeachment trial, to thus ensure the independence and impartiality of the Judicial Branch. However, the petitioner affirms that ever since that Constitution was adopted the governing political class in Paraguay has tried to subdue the Judicial Branch and has obliged the judges to engage in a constant struggle to maintain their independence and the rule of law. He specifically points to the unconstitutionality of Laws N° 609 and N° 1,634 which were passed in 1995 and 2000, respectively, to organize the Supreme Court and to establish a procedure for the confirmation of judges in the Judicial Branch. The petitioner indicates that the Judicial Branch declared the aforementioned laws inapplicable because they are against the Constitution. 9. The petitioner refers that Nicanor Duarte Frutos was elected as President of the Republic of Paraguay in April of 2003. Before his inauguration, the president-elect insinuated that in order to renew the system of justice the Justices on the Supreme Court would be replaced; however he did not specify how such changes would take place. Later, the president is alleged to have met with leaders of the parties to agree on six Justices to be replaced, considering an allotment for each political party. Later it was agreed that the way to replace the Supreme Court Justices was to ask for their resignations, under threat of an impeachment trial if they did not resign. According to the petitioner, once they agreed on the names of the six Justices to be removed, “the attacks on the Justices were violent, and once President Nicanor Duarte Frutos took office he said that he would pulverize the Judicial Branch.” The petitioner submitted several press reports regarding these allegations. 10. The petitioner alleges that the leaders of the political parties agreed to hold impeachment trials on six of the previously selected Supreme Court Justices, which resulted in the resignations of two of them on October 27, 2003. Since they had agreed to hold impeachment trials without knowing what the grounds for them were, an office was prepared in the House of Representatives for the public to file complaints. Thus, on November 18 it was determined that charges should be filed against Justices Bonifacio Ríos Ávalos, Luis Lezcano Claude, Felipe Santiago Paredes, and Carlos Fernández Gadea, such that an impeachment trial for their removal could be held on the basis of 20 counts. Later, several of the Justices resigned, leaving only Bonifacio Ríos Ávalos and Carlos Fernández Gadea to be removed from office through an impeachment trial. 2