90. On December 8, 2004, the special session of the National Congress opened with 53 legislators,119 of the total of 100 members of Congress. Congress declared itself in permanent regular session.120 The members of the Constitutional Tribunal had not been informed of the session.121 91. The members of Congress began to examine the first item on the agenda relating to the vote in the impeachment proceeding concerning the Constitutional Tribunal (supra para. 82). The debate on this item focused on the following issues: (i) some members of Congress indicated that the summons to a special session issued by the President of the Republic was unconstitutional, because the impeachment proceeding had already concluded,122 and the censure and removal of the members of the Constitutional Tribunal had been rejected and, therefore, the call to special sessions constituted an interference in the monitoring task that was exclusive to the National Congress,123 and (ii) the impeachment proceeding had concluded with the vote by the members of Congress, and that the mechanism to review the decision adopted on December 1, 2004, was reconsideration, and that, since this had not occurred opportunely, a second vote on the impeachment would constitute a violation of the res judicata principle.124 In fact, several members of Congress asked the Secretariat of Congress to certify the results of the votes on the motions of censure held on December 1, 2004.125 92. Meanwhile, some members of Congress considered that it was “totally pertinent to hold the vote again,”126 because they considered that the joinder of the motions of censure tabled by congressmen Serrano (E) and Posso (F) in relation to the D’Hondt method had not been appropriate. The main reason for this assertion was that the motion of censure tabled by congressman Posso had not included Judge Oswaldo Cevallos, while congressmen Serrano’s motion included him; hence, the individuals accused in the joindered motions were not identical.127 Based on this discussion and as a preliminary motion, a vote was held on “whether to hold another vote on the motions of censure against the members of the Constitutional Tribunal.”128 The vote was held based on a simple majority and passed with 54 votes.129 93. Once the motion had been approved according to which the joinder was not appropriate, the motion of censure tabled by congressman Segundo Serrano on the D’Hondt 119 Cf. National Congress Record No. 24-001-IV of December 8, 2004 (merits file, tome II, folio 583). 120 Cf. National Congress Record No. 24-001-IV of December 8, 2004 (merits file, tome II, folio 580). 121 Cf. Affidavit prepared by Manuel Jaramillo Córdova on March 6, 2013 (merits file, tome III, folio 1303); Affidavit prepared by Jaime Manuel Nogales Izurieta on March 4, 2013 (merits file, tome III, folio 1323), and Statement made by Oswaldo Cevallos at the public hearing of March 18, 2013. 122 Cf. National Congress Record No. 24-001-IV of December 8, 2004 (merits file, tome II, folios 602, 604, 617 and 636). 123 Cf. National Congress Record No. 24-001-IV of December 8, 2004 (merits file, tome II, folios 602, 611, 614, 621 and 635). 124 Cf. National Congress Record No. 24-001-IV of December 8, 2004 (merits file, tome II, folio 602). 125 Cf. National Congress Record No. 24-001-IV of December 8, 2004 (merits file, tome II, folio 606). 126 Cf. National Congress Record No. 24-001-IV of December 8, 2004 (merits file, tome II, folio 607). 127 Cf. National Congress Record No. 24-001-IV of December 8, 2004 (merits file, tome II, folios 608 and 609). 128 Cf. National Congress Record No. 24-001-IV of December 8, 2004 (merits file, tome II, folio 638). 129 Cf. National Congress Record No. 24-001-IV of December 8, 2004 (merits file, tome II, folio 638). 31