with regard to Justice Bonifacio Ríos Ávalos.50 The Indictment Committee argued that, by withdrawing certain charges, this would “save the Senate time” and “permit a more extensive discussion of the more relevant issues,” in addition to ensuring that the justices indicted “were able to defend themselves fully.”51 The same day, the Senate decided to admit the evidence offered by the parties and, in this regard, issued Resolution No. 128.52 37. Subsequently, during the session on December 10, 2003, the Indictment Committee and the defense counsel of each indicted justice presented their respective oral arguments. 53 C.4. Dismissal of Bonifacio Ríos Ávalos and Carlos Fernández Gadea 38. During the session of December 12, 2003, the Senate, sitting “as a court,” deliberated “on the arguments of the parties and on the evidence produced.” At the start of the session, the president of the Senate advised that Justice Luis Lezcano Claude’s resignation had been received, and the corresponding letter of resignation was read out. 54 39. Following the deliberations, the members of the Senate proceeded to vote “whether or not [the defendants were] guilty of the improper performance of functions.” In the case of Carlos Fernández Gadea, the result of the vote was “44 votes that he was [guilty] and one absence,” and in the case of Bonifacio Ríos Ávalos, “43 votes [that he was guilty], one abstention, and one absence.”55 40. The same day, the Senate issued Resolution No. 134 removing Carlos Fernández Gadea and Bonifacio Ríos Ávalos from their functions as justices of the Supreme Court of Justice.56 D. Actions of unconstitutionality filed by the presumed victims 41. On November 27, 2003, the presumed victims filed separate actions of unconstitutionality against Senate Resolution No. 122 of November 25, 2003, establishing the procedure for the impeachment proceedings.57 Cf. Transcript of the session of the Senate of the National Congress of the Republic of Paraguay of December 3, 2003 (evidence file, volume V, annex 4.5. to the answering brief, folios 10345, 10345, 10350 to 10353 and 10356 to 10360). 51 In response to the Indictment Committee’s statement, the president of the Senate indicated that “note [was] taken of the withdrawal.” Cf. Transcript of the session of the Senate of the National Congress of the Republic of Paraguay of December 3, 2003 (evidence file, volume V, annex 4.5. to the answering brief, folios 10344, 10345, 10350 and 10351). 52 Cf. Transcript of the session of the Senate of the National Congress of the Republic of Paraguay of December 3, 2003 (evidence file, volume V, annex 4.5. to the answering brief, folios 10352 to 10360), and Resolution No. 128 of the Senate of the National Congress of the Republic of Paraguay of December 3, 2003 (evidence file, volume IV, annex VI.A to the pleadings and motions brief, folios 6566 to 6570). 53 Cf. Transcript of the session of the Senate of the National Congress of the Republic of Paraguay of December 10, 2003 (evidence file, volume V, annex 4.6. to the answering brief, folios 10367 to 10483). 54 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 10486 to 10546). 55 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 10547 to 10550). 56 Cf. Resolution No. 134 of the Senate of the National Congress of the Republic of Paraguay of December 12, 2003 (evidence file, volume I, annex 8 to the Merits Report, folios 77 and 78). In the same Resolution, the Senate “took note” of Justice Luis Lezcano Claude’s resignation in order to “exclude him […] from this list of defendants.” 57 Cf. Brief filing action of unconstitutionality against Senate Resolution No. 122 of November 27, 2003, submitted by Carlos Fernández Gadea, and Brief filing action of unconstitutionality against Senate Resolution No. 122 of November 27, 2003, submitted by Bonifacio Ríos Avalos (evidence file, volume II, procedure before the Commission, folios 335 to 339 and 813 to 819). Among other matters, the presumed victims argued that Resolution No. 122 violated the right of defense because the time frame for preparing their defense was limited to two working days and its presentation could not exceed three hours. 50 14