case. 9 As the Court emphasized in these prior cases, Ecuador had seven presidents in the years from 1996 to 2007, none of whom completed the four-year term of office. The judiciary was not immune from this instability and “at times [was] taken over by political authorities, such that, [in] Ecuador, the independence of the Supreme Court of Justice has been compromised and the institution exploited throughout its history.” 10 11. Moreover, and more importantly, before Mr. Aguinaga Aillón’s dismissal, the opposition parties in Congress were already making preparations to launch impeachment proceedings for the crime of embezzlement. The administration built a parliamentary majority with other parties to counteract the impeachment. The leader of one of these parties hoped to quash several criminal trials currently on the docket of the Supreme Court against a former president who, prompted by these trials, was a fugitive in Panama at the time. 11 This parliamentary accord, led by individuals from inside the executive and legislative branches of Ecuador, was the motivation for the move by the administration of then-President Lucio Gutiérrez to reorganize the judiciary, leading to the adoption of the congressional resolutions that removed the judges from the TSE, the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court, and immediately appointed their replacements. The Court’s judgment said: 84. The Court would recall the facts summarized in chapter VI of this judgment, that at the time the judges were dismissed, Ecuador was going through a period of political instability that had seen the removal of several Presidents and multiple amendments of the Constitution as a way to resolve the political crisis. Furthermore, the alliance of the government in power with the political party headed by former President Bucaram provides an indication of the possible reasons or purpose for wanting to remove the justices of the Supreme Court and the members of the Constitutional Court, that is, the interest in putting a stop to criminal proceedings being conducted by the Supreme Court against former President Bucaram. 85. Furthermore, the Court recalls that within a period of 14 days, not only were the members of the TSE dismissed, but so were the justices on the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Tribunal, which constitutes an abrupt, totally unacceptable course of action. All these facts undermined judicial independence. The Court can thus conclude, at the very least, that at the time Ecuador was experiencing a climate of instability in important State institutions. Moreover, the judges were blocked from lodging a remedy of amparo to challenge any decisions that Congress might make against them. The Court emphasizes that these factors support the affirmation that a mass, arbitrary dismissal of judges is unacceptable given its negative impact on judicial independence at the institutional level. 12 Cf. Case of the Supreme Court of Justice (Quintana Coello et al.) v. Ecuador, supra, paras. 42 to 62; Case of the Constitutional Court (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador, supra, paras. 43 to 48, and Case of Aguinaga Aillón v. Ecuador, supra, paras. 32 to 34 and 38. 9 Cf. Case of the Supreme Court of Justice (Quintana Coello et al.) v. Ecuador, supra, para. 40; Case of the Constitutional Court (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador, supra, para. 41; and Case of Aguinaga Aillón v. Ecuador, supra, para. 33. 10 Cf. Case of the Supreme Court of Justice (Quintana Coello et al.) v. Ecuador, supra, para. 64, Case of the Constitutional Court (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador, supra, para. 55, and Case of Aguinaga Aillón v. Ecuador, supra, para. 38. 11 12 Cf. Case of the Supreme Court of Justice (Quintana Coello et al.) v. Ecuador, supra, para. 174, Case of the Constitutional Court (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador, supra, para. 211; and Case of Aguinaga Aillón v. Ecuador, supra, paras. 84 and 85. 4