tried by impartial judges […]. The last part of art. 4 of the same contested administrative resolution states that “each defense may not take more than three hours, and we are aware that any limitation of the right of defense violates the cardinal principle of the inviolability of defense […]. In these conditions, it is patent and unequivocal that the procedural regulation established in Senate R[esolution No.] 122 of 25/11/03 is manifestly unconstitutional.63 47. In the case of Senate Resolution No. 134, the Constitutional Chamber argued, among other matters: No specific acts were attributed to those who were removed in any of the submissions […]. The judges have not considered any fact proved; the ruling is not based on either its factual or legal aspects. […] In this case, the judgment is founded on the autocratic intention of the “voters” (rather than judges), because they did not explain why they had proceeded in this way, which inevitably results in the said decision or sanction being arbitrary. […] It has been categorically demonstrated that the 2003 removal was not based on legal grounds, but rather for strictly political reasons. It is true that an “impeachment” may be for “political reasons” – and is generally due to such reasons. However, what cannot and should not be allowed is that “legal grounds” are cited for the impeachment and that the trial is concluded by convicting or sanctioning someone for “political reasons” […]. The trial sub judice of the justices of the Supreme Court of Justice for the opinions expressed in the rulings listed ut supra, has been not only a serious error committed against the judicial immunity recognized in the Constitution itself for all court judges, but also, the contested ruling could even signify an “attack against the independence of the Judiciary.”64 D.2. Resolution No. 1 of the National Congress 48. On January 2, 2010, the National Congress issued Resolution No. 1, in which it “[repudiated and rejected the content and the terms of Judgments Nos. 951 and 952 of the Supreme Court of Justice, Constitutional Chamber, of December 30, 2009].” The resolution indicated the following, inter alia: Article 3. To repudiate vigorously the content of Judgments [Nos.] 951 and 952, respectively, of December 30, 2009, delivered by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice […]. Article 4. To reject as null and void the content of this decision because it was delivered in evident ultra vires in the exercise of its functions by the Judiciary [sic] […]. Article 5. To advise the justices of the Supreme Court of Justice, the Judicial Council, the Jury for the Prosecution of Judges, and the Executive Branch that, if the validity of the judgment is admitted [sic], they will incur in grounds for impeachment, in addition to incurring criminal liability for acting as accomplices of the signatories of the said judgment.65 D.3. Resolution No. 2382 of the Supreme Court of Justice 49. On January 5, 2010, the Supreme Court of Justice, acting as an “organ of government” and based on its “powers of supervision over all the bodies of the Judiciary,” issued Resolution No. 2382, declaring that Judgments Nos. 951 and 952 “delivered by the members of the Government Accountability Office as members of the Constitutional Chamber […] lacked legal validity” (supra para. 44), and also ordered that the said officials be “suspended from their functions.” To this end, the Supreme Court considered, among other matters that, when issuing the said decisions, the judges who signed them “failed to observe the legal order of Cf. Judgment No. 951 of December 30, 2009, delivered by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic of Paraguay, and Judgment No. 952 of December 30, 2009, delivered by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic of Paraguay (evidence file, volume I, annex 10 to the Merits Report, folios 107 and 138). 64 Cf. Judgment No. 951 of December 30, 2009, delivered by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic of Paraguay, and Judgment No. 952 of December 30, 2009, delivered by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic of Paraguay (evidence file, volume I, annex 10 to the Merits Report, folios 108, 110, 111, 140, 141 and 142). 65 Cf. Resolution No. 1 of the National Congress of the Republic of Paraguay of January 2, 2010 (evidence file, volume I, annex 11 to the Merits Report, folios 150 and 151). 63 16