method (E) was read out.130 Then, a vote was held on the motion of censure, “the debate procedure having concluded and this being the explicit mandate of the Plenary.”131 The vote culminated with 57 votes in favor of censuring the “former members of the Constitutional Tribunal,”132 which meant that the motion against Oswaldo Cevallos, Jaime Nogales, Miguel Camba, Luis Rojas, Simón Zavala and Manuel Jaramillo was adopted. 94. Then, the motion of censure tabled by congressman Antonio Posso concerning the Tribunal’s decision on the D´Hondt Method (F)133 was read. Immediately afterwards, a vote was held on the motion, resulting in 56 votes in favor of the motion of censure.134 Therefore, the motion against Jaime Nogales, Miguel Camba, Luis Rojas, Simón Zavala and Manuel Jaramillo was adopted. 95. When this vote had concluded, the Speaker asked if any motions of censure remained pending a vote, and the Secretary of Congress responded that “Congressmen Luis Villacís Maldonado and Marco Proaño Maya had withdrawn their motions of censure. Consequently, based on the decision taken by Congress, a vote should be taken on the motion of censure concerning the violations of the Constitution in relation to the fourteenth salary that had been tabled by congressman Segundo Serrano against the members of the Constitutional Tribunal: Oswaldo Cevallos, Jaime Nogales, René de la Torre, Miguel Camba and Luis Rojas.”135 The vote was then held on the motion of censure tabled by congressman Serrano in relation to the fourteenth salary (D), resulting in 45 votes against and six in favor – in other words, 51 valid votes – and the motion was rejected.136 96. Immediately after this the Speaker called a vote on the motion of censure tabled by congressman Posso in relation to the fourteenth salary (B) against Judges Oswaldo Cevallos, Luis Rojas, Miguel Camba, Jaime Nogales and René de la Torre. The result of this vote was 44 votes against and five in favor; hence 49 valid votes. 137 Those present requested the rectification of this vote, and it was held again with the following result: 43 votes against and four in favor, for a total of 47 valid votes and, consequently, this motion was also rejected.138 97. The members of Congress then turned to the second item on the agenda: “Analysis of the decision on the legal and constitutional situation of the Judiciary.”139 As a result of this debate, National Congress issued Resolution No. R-25-181,140 by which it terminated 130 Cf. National Congress Record No. 24-001-IV of December 8, 2004 (merits file, tome II, folio 639). 131 Cf. National Congress Record No. 24-001-IV of December 8, 2004 (file of annexes to the report, tome II, folio 710). 132 It is worth noting that there were 57 valid votes, because the other members of Congress refused to vote. National Congress Record No. 24-001-IV of December 8, 2004 (merits file, tome II, folio 649). 133 Cf. National Congress Record No. 24-001-IV of December 8, 2004 (merits file, tome II, folio 650). 134 Cf. National Congress Record No. 24-001-IV of December 8, 2004 (merits file, tome II, folio 659). 135 Cf. National Congress Record No. 24-001-IV of December 8, 2004 (merits file, tome II, folios 659 and 660). 136 Cf. National Congress Record No. 24-001-IV of December 8, 2004 (merits file, tome II, folio 668). 137 Cf. National Congress Record No. 24-001-IV of December 8, 2004 (file of annexes to the report, tome II, folio 749). 138 Cf. National Congress Record No. 24-001-IV of December 8, 2004 (merits file, tome II, folio 685). 139 Cf. National Congress Record No. 24-001-IV of December 8, 2004 (merits file, tome II, folio 687). 140 Cf. National Congress, Resolution No. R-25-181 of December 9, 2004 (file of attachments to the report, tome I, folios 85 and 86). 32