session of Congress on December 8 of that year.4 During that session, the parliamentary majority censured the justices who had voted in favor of Decision 025-2003-TC, which had abolished articles 105 and 106 of the Election Law. Those two articles concerned the method for allocating seats based on voting results, using the D’Hondt system.5 10. The petitioners also allege that the de facto Constitutional Court delivered a decision on December 2, 2004, wherein it advised the President of the Supreme Court that petitions seeking amparo relief were inadmissible for purposes of suspending the effects of a parliamentary resolution. The effect was to put that remedy out of the terminated justices’ reach as a means to challenge their removal. Various members of the Constitutional Court let it be known in advance what their position would be and stated that they would dismiss any petition of amparo filed on appeal. 11. The petitioners state that former justices Miguel Ángel Camba Campos, Oswaldo Cevallos, Simón Zavala, Luis Rojas and Mauro Terán each filed petitions of amparo to challenge the constitutionality of their removal.6 However, they maintain that Deputy Luis Fernando Almeida, part of the majority in power in Congress, threatened the justices. The petitioners believe that as a direct result of those threats, the magistrates reversed the decisions that admitted the petitions of amparo in the first three cases and that in the other cases the petitions were rejected in limine, by a decision of December 2, 2004. 12. Additionally, the petitioners state that Oswaldo Cevallos was impeached by Congress, even though he did not participate in the vote that passed the Constitutional Court decision for which he was impeached.7 Former justices Herrería and Terán were never summoned for impeachment, although they were removed from the bench. The petitioners also contend that on April 26, 2005, the National Congress nullified the resolution by which the de facto Constitutional Court was appointed, thereby nullifying the appointments of the justices on the grounds that their appointments were unconstitutional. The justices removed in November 2004 were never restored to the bench. 13. As for the State’s contention concerning the available remedies, the petitioners allege that the constitutionality challenge was neither an appropriate nor effective remedy to challenge the November 24, 2004 termination. They argue that a constitutionality challenge is not a simple remedy, because the person cannot himself appear before the court. Furthermore, the party filing the challenge has to collect 1,000 signatures in order to file the challenge, or request the intervention of the Ombudsman’s Office. They also contend that the constitutionality challenge is not the proper remedy because it is not intended to protect human rights, but rather to challenge laws that are at variance with the Constitution. The petitioners argue that a constitutionality challenge cannot redress human rights violations; it can only put a stop to the effects of a law. They reason that such a challenge would have been condemned to fail because it would have been heard and decided by the very Constitutional Court that had issued a ruling to the effect that judges of first instance did not have jurisdiction to hear challenges whose objective was to suspend the effects of the termination ruling. They add that the administrative-contentious avenue was also closed. It, too, would not have been an effective or appropriate remedy since, in the final analysis, it would have to be decided by a Supreme Court that was neither independent nor impartial. 4 El Comercio, “Special session of Congress convened, December 5, 2004; El Universo, December 5, 2004. 5 The petitioners argue that the resolution had been issued and published more than a year earlier in the official record; therefore, under the Organic Law of the Legislative Office, Article 92, Congress would have no longer had the authority to impeach the justices on those grounds. 6 Respectively: the decision by which the court takes cognizance of the case, December 3, 2004, the decision declaring the case inadmissible, December 15, 2004; Eighth Civil Court of Pichincha, Trial 1222, the decision by which the court takes cognizance of the case. Brief of Deputy Almeida at 26-28; Trial 1233-4 Twelfth Civil Court of Pichincha; Trial 1223, Eleventh Civil Court of Pichincha, Decicision of December 14, 2005; Trial No. 1213-2004, Decision to take cognizance of the case, December 3, 2004, and Decision of December 13, 2004. 7 The petitioners indicate that the justice was hospitalized on the date Resolution No. 025-2003-TC was issued and therefore did not participate in the proceedings thereon. 3