3 provided does not reveal specific progress in relation with the public act of acknowledgment of its responsibility. Regarding the recommendation to “adopt measures of non-repetition, that assure the independence of the Judiciary, including the measures necessary so that domestic law and applicable practice obey clear criteria and ensure guarantees in the appointment, tenure, and removal of judges, in particular, a long enough term in judicial office to ensure their independence and the determination of the grounds for impeachment, in accordance with the standards established in the American Convention”, the State recommends to provide the Inter-American Commission with the text of article 187 of the Political Constitution of Ecuador of 2008 and the Organic Law of the Judicial Function. However, the State did not explain how those norms and its actual implementation make it possible to regard the defects that gave rise to the facts of the instant case as overcome. Therefore, the Commission is submitting this case to the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court taking into account the need to obtain justice for the victims, and the issues of inter-American public order that the case raises. The Inter-American Commission is submitting to the jurisdiction of the Court the full facts and human rights violations as set out in merits report 99/11 and asks the Court to adjudge and declare the international responsibility of the State of Ecuador for: Violating the rights to a fair trial, to the freedom from ex post facto laws, and to judicial protection, enshrined in Articles 8, 9, and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with the obligations set out in Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof, with respect to Miguel Camba Campos, Oswaldo Cevallos Bueno, Enrique Herrería Bonnet, Jaime Nogales Izurieta, Luis Rojas Bajaña, Mauro Terán Cevallos, Simón Zabala Guzmán y Manuel Jaramillo Córdova. Consequently, the Commission is asking the Inter-American Court to order the following reparations: 1. (a)Reinstate the victims in the judiciary, in positions similar to those that they held, with the same remuneration, social benefits, and rank comparable to that they would hold today if their functions had not been terminated, for the period of time that was remaining in their terms, or (b) If, for grounded reasons, reinstatement is not possible, the State shall reasonably indemnify the victims, or if applicable to their successors, taking into account moral damages. 2. Pay the victims the professional wages, pensions and/or social benefits they failed to receive from the time of their termination up to the moment on which their terms would have ended. 3. Publicly recognize, granting adequate publicity, the violations declared in the present case, in particular, the infringement on the independence of the Judiciary. 4. Adopt measures of non-repetition, that assure the independence of the Judiciary, including the measures necessary so that domestic law and applicable practice obey clear criteria and ensure guarantees in the appointment, tenure, and removal of judges, in particular, a long enough term in judicial office to ensure their