the mandate of all the justices of the Supreme Court of Justice.141 This resolution was adopted by 52 votes in favor and three against.142 The same resolution appointed the new justices of the Supreme Court of Justice. 98. Immediately after adopting the resolution and, even though it was not on the agenda, a motion was tabled on the amendment of the Constitution so that Congress would again have competence to impeach the members of the Supreme Court of Justice.143 This motion was adopted by 34 votes in favor.144 The third and last item on the agenda, relating to the Organic Law on Elections was then discussed. 145 The session concluded at 12.40 a.m. next day.146 D. The Constitutional Tribunal’s decision on the inadmissibility of actions for amparo against decisions of Congress 99. On December 2, 2004, one day after the National Congress had been unable to adopt several motions of censure on the removal of the members of the Constitutional Tribunal in the context of the impeachment proceedings (supra paras. 87 and 88), the new Constitutional Tribunal appointed on November 25, 2004, issued a decision in response to a request from the President of the Republic “to prevent the judges of the domestic courts from admitting for processing actions for constitutional amparo against Parliamentary Resolution R-25-160, adopted by the […] National Congress on November 25, 2004.”147 In this regard, the Constitutional Tribunal decided: To establish that, in order to suspend the effects of a parliamentary resolution, including No. 25-160, adopted by the National Congress on November 25, 2004, for supposed violation of the Constitution, in substance and form, the only admissible action is the action on unconstitutionality that must be filed before the Constitutional Tribunal, pursuant to the ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice of June 27, 2001, published in Official Gazette No. 378 of July 27 that year; and, that any remedy of amparo that may be filed in the country’s courts related to the said resolution must be reject outright by the judges and not admitted, because, to the contrary, they would be hearing a case contrary to an explicit law and this would entail the corresponding judicial actions.148 100. The ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice of June 27, 2001, referred to in the decision of the Constitutional Tribunal of December 2, 2004, was a ruling clarifying the criteria applicable to constitutional protection.149 The Constitutional Tribunal’s decision of December 2, 2004, cites article 2(a) of the said ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice that indicated: 141 811). 142 811). Cf. National Congress Record No. 24-001-IV of December 8, 2004 (merits file, tome II, folio 810 and Cf. National Congress Record No. 24-001-IV of December 8, 2004 (merits file, tome II, folio 810 and 143 Cf. National Congress Record No. 24-001-IV of December 8, 2004 (merits file, tome II, folio 822). 144 Cf. National Congress Record No. 24-001-IV of December 8, 2004 (merits file, tome II, folio 822). 145 Cf. National Congress Record No. 24-001-IV of December 8, 2004 (merits file, tome II, folios 822 to 835). 146 Cf. National Congress Record No. 24-001-IV of December 8, 2004 (merits file, tome II, folio 835). 147 Cf. Ruling of the Constitutional Tribunal of December 2, 2004 (file of annexes to the report, tome III, folio 1058). 148 1059). Cf. Ruling of the Constitutional Court of December 2, 2004 (file of annexes to the report, tome III, folio 149 Cf. Ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice of June 27, 2001 (file of annexes to the report, tome III, folios 1068 to 1071). 33