104. In the ruling of December 13, 2004, the First Civil Court indicated that it was “public knowledge that, on Wednesday, December 8 that year, most of the members of the National Congress had proceeded to hold an impeachment proceeding against the members of the Constitutional Tribunal […], an act that was eminently legal and legitimate, because it was established in the Constitution, so that it had legal effects, including the censure that resulted in the immediate removal of the official.”153 In addition, it cited the ruling of the Constitutional Tribunal of December 2, 2004, and concluded that, “based on the preceding considerations, the action for amparo was inadmissible, and should be rejected outright, without examining the merits of the matter.”154 105. In addition, on December 14, 2004, the Eleventh Civil Court of Pichincha refused to admit the remedy of constitutional amparo filed by Mauro Leonidas Terán Cevallos, dismissed member of the Constitutional Tribunal. This court indicated that an “action for amparo is inadmissible […] when it is filed in relation to […] legislative acts issued by a public authority.”155 The reasoning for this decision was based on the ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice of June 27, 2001, establishing that this type of action “should be filed before the Constitutional Tribunal.”156 106. Furthermore, on December 15, 2004, the Tenth Civil Court of Pichincha refused to admit the action for constitutional amparo filed by Simón Bolívar Zabala Guzmán, dismissed member of the Constitutional Tribunal. The court took this decision based on the Constitutional Tribunal’s ruling of December 2, and “reject[ed] outright [the remedy and would] not admit the action for amparo.”157 107. On the same date, the Eighth Civil Court of Pichincha ruled on the action for amparo filed by Freddy Oswaldo Cevallos Bueno, dismissed member of the Constitutional Tribunal. Based on article 2(a) of the ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice of June 27, 2001, and the ruling of the Constitutional Tribunal of December 2, 2004, it refused to admit the action for amparo.158 108. Some of the judges who decided these actions for amparo had, at first, suspended temporarily the decision of Congress ordering the termination of the members of the Constitutional Tribunal.159 As a result of this suspension, congressman Luis Fernando Almeida Moran submitted briefs to four of the courts in which he indicated that, if the judges did not revoke the said suspension and did not recuse themselves from continuing to 153 Decision of the First Civil Court of Pichincha of December 13, 2004 (file of annexes to the report, tome III, folio 1084). 154 Decision of the First Civil Court of Pichincha of December 13, 2004 (file of annexes to the report, tome III, folio 1084). 155 Decision of the Eleventh Civil Court of Pichincha of December 14, 2004 (file of annexes to the report, tome III, folio 1086). 156 Cf. Decision of the Eleventh Civil Court of Pichincha of December 14, 2004 (file of annexes to the report, tome III, folio 1086). 157 Decision of the Tenth Civil Court of Pichincha of December 15, 2004 (file of annexes to the report, tome III, folio 1088). 158 Decision of the Eighth Civil Court of Pichincha of December 15, 2004 (file of annexes to the report, tome III, folio 1090). 159 Cf. Decision of the Eighth Civil Court of Pichincha of December 3, 2004 (file of annexes to the report, tome III, folio 1365); Decision of the First Civil Court of Pichincha of December 3, 2004 (file of annexes to the report, tome III, folio 1405), and Decision of the Tenth Civil Court of Pichincha of December 3, 2004 (file of annexes to the report, tome III, folio 1517). 35