125. Even more specifically, before the start of the impeachment proceedings, during the Senate session of November 25, 2003, several members of that chamber explicitly mentioned a “political agreement,” a “political undertaking” or a “consensus” that presumably included the impeachment proceedings resulting in the “dismissal of the justices.”140 126. Lastly, during the session of December 12, 2003, at which the Senate deliberated and decided the dismissal of Messrs. Fernández Gadea and Ríos Ávalos, several members of the chamber again mentioned and cited the “political agreement” that existed, indicating that their vote responded to compliance with the “undertaking” assumed and to the “consensus” to remove the indicted justices from office.141 127. Accordingly, it is reasonable to assume that the decision to undertake impeachment proceedings against several members of the Supreme Court – three of whom resigned beforehand – was taken as a result of the political agreement. 142 Ultimately, the said agreement formed the grounds for deciding to indict three other justices143 and, eventually, for removing the presumed victims from office as a result of the impeachment proceedings. This is confirmed by the vote taken by the Senate at the end of the session of December 12, 2003, in which, by a substantial majority and almost unanimously, the senators decided to dismiss the presumed victims (44 and 43 affirmative votes, respectively, out of the 45 members of the Chamber, without any votes against the decision, and one absence in both cases and one abstention in the case of Mr. Ríos Ávalos, supra para. 39). 128. The Inter-American Court does not have any evidence to allow it to understand the exact reasons for the interest in removing the members of the Supreme Court; particularly because different reasons were mentioned during the impeachment proceedings and throughout the actual proceedings,144 added to which no information has been provided Cf. Transcript of the session of the Senate of the National Congress of the Republic of Paraguay of November 25, 2003 (evidence file, volume V, annex 4.2. to the answering brief, folios 10152, 10153 to 10155, 10157 and 10159). During the discussions on the date on which the Chamber would hold the last session of the impeachment proceedings, one of the senators even stated the following: Here, the reasons have already been indicated; these men have been sentenced and, for a while now, the decision has been taken to remove them; at least, let us advise them when they must go. […] It has been said that since there is a political agreement; if there is a political agreement, what importance can the indictment, the defense, and the evidence have – whether the evidence is admitted, whether the evidence is not admitted – if this is a political agreement to dismiss them? Since it has already been decided that they must go, then this should be as soon as possible […] and then we can get on with other things, because then the arguments will start about who should replace them. 141 Cf. Transcript of the session of the Senate of the National Congress of the Republic of Paraguay of December 12, 2003 (evidence file, volume V, annex 4.7. to the answering brief, folios 10515, 10517, 10524, 10529 and 10538). Thus, one of the senators stated the following: Let us stand up and say that we are not dishonorable politicians; that we are not intimidated by the claim that these impeachment proceedings are not important because there was already a political pact, and I say that we are not dishonorable politicians because we acknowledge the existence of a political pact, which is a well-known public fact […]. 142 In their letters of resignation, Justices Raúl Sapena Brugada and Felipe Santiago Paredes expressly mentioned the impeachment to be instituted against them; Justice Jerónimo Irala Burgos did not. Cf. Resignation letter of Justice Jerónimo Irala Burgos of October 25, 2003 (evidence file, volume I, annex 5 to the Merits Report, folio 11); resignation letter of Justice Raúl Sapena Brugada of October 27, 2003 (evidence file, volume I, annex 4 to the Merits Report, folio 9), and resignation letter of Justice Felipe Santiago Paredes of November 17, 2003 (evidence file, volume IV, annex V.C to the pleadings and motions brief, folio 6491). 143 As indicated, Justice Luis Lezcano Claude, also included in the articles of impeachment, presented his resignation before the Senate had debated and voted on the dismissal of the indicted justices (supra para. 38). 144 This disparity in the possible reasons is reflected, for example, by the words of one of the justices who resigned before the start of the impeachment proceedings. In the letter he presented to the Senate, he indicated that his resignation was due to the fact that the “consensus of all the political parties” that had allowed him to assume office “no longer exist[ed].” Cf. Resignation letter of Justice Raúl Sapena Brugada of October 27, 2003 (evidence file, volume 140 34