1998 Constitution contained guarantees of independence for the functioning of the former Constitutional Tribunal, even though, nowadays there are greater guarantees, and the possibility of impeachment has been eliminated.” Thus, declaring “the violation of Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention would be inconsistent and without evidence, because Ecuadorian laws and, consequently, the general intention of the State, expressed in its different norms over time, has always aimed at respect for human rights. Thus, one specific case should not be used to prove non-compliance with a general obligation.” 11. Arguments on judicial protection 156. The Commission considered that “the [presumed] victims were prevented, arbitrarily and without justification from filing appeals for amparo against the termination resolution of the National Congress,” and that the indicated remedy for the Constitutional Tribunal; that was, the action on unconstitutionality, was not suitable for challenging the particular effects of that resolution.” In addition, it argued that “the [presumed] victims did not have access to an effective remedy to argue violations of due process during the impeachment proceedings, such as the right to heard and the right of defense.” 157. The representatives argued that the “members […] of the Constitutional Tribunal […] were unable to avail themselves of the action for constitutional protection, nor was this an effective remedy, [and] did not have any simple and prompt remedies that would have protected their fundamental rights violated by the decision of the National Congress to remove them from office.” They considered that: “(1) the remedies of amparo filed by the members of the CT were systematically rejected; (2) court judges were threatened if they decided in favor of the amparo; (3) the President of the Republic asked the de facto CC to take a general decision to reject the remedies of amparo; (4) the court judges were neither independent nor impartial; (5) an interpretive decision of the SCJ on the scope of the amparo was applied that disallowed its application to the resolutions of the National Congress”. 158. The representatives considered that “the remedy of amparo was not effective to contest the termination decisions adopted by the National Congress, because the actions filed by the members of the [Constitutional Tribunal] were rejected based on the political pressure placed on the court judges. Moreover, it was senseless to appeal the resolutions, owing to the evident partiality of the judges. The action on unconstitutionality was also ineffective for two reasons: (1) access, and (2) the result. Regarding access, the action could only be filed on the initiative of some State institutions and with the support of 1,000 persons making use of their political rights. The victims in this case, at the time of the violation of their rights, ceased to be judges; hence, they were not legitimated to file the remedy. They could only have sought 1,000 supporting signatures, which meant that it was difficult to have access to this remedy. With regard to the result, according to the abovementioned constitutional norms, the purpose of the action is to examine the formal and substantial conformity of a norm or of an administrative act with the Constitution. The action on unconstitutionality does not provide the possibility to repair a right.” 159. The State acquiesced to the violation of this article of the Convention with regard to the facts relating to the termination of the members of the Constitutional Tribunal. In its answering brief, the State argued that “regarding access” to a judicial remedy, “article 277 of the Constitution establishe[d] the possibility that citizens, with a minimum of 1,000 signatures, could file an action on unconstitutionality, a situation that was not an impossible requirement for the former members of the Constitutional Tribunal to meet.” In addition, it indicated, in relation to the action on unconstitutionality following a report of the Ombudsman, that, “in numerous cases, [the latter] applied the 1998 Constitution directly 46