authority to hold impeachment proceedings for justices of the Supreme Court, revealed the interest in safeguarding the separation of powers and judicial independence in the best possible way. 210. Thus, in the instant case, the Court finds it necessary to examine the context in which the facts surrounding the removal of the judges from office occurred, because this will be useful to understand the reasons or grounds on which this decision was made. This is because the reason or purpose of a specific decision of the State authorities is relevant for the legal analysis of a case, since a purpose or reason that differs from the norm that grants the State authority the power to act, may reveal whether the action can be considered an arbitrary act.248 In this regard, the Court bases itself on the fact that the actions of State authorities are protected by a presumption of legal conduct; hence an irregular action by the State authorities must be proved in order to override the presumption of good faith. 249 211. Based on the facts that were described in Chapter VII of this Judgment, the Court emphasizes that these reveal that, at the time the termination of the judges occurred, Ecuador was experiencing a situation of political instability that had involved the removal of several Presidents and the amendment of the Constitution on several occasion in order to deal with the political crisis. Furthermore, the alliance of the Government in power at the time with the political party headed by former President Bucaram provides an indication of the possible reasons or purpose for wanting to remove the justices of the Supreme Court and the members of the Constitutional Tribunal; particularly, the existence of an interest in annulling the criminal proceedings that the Supreme Court was hearing against former President Bucaram. To this end, it was sought to “re-organize” the high courts by the appointment of judges favorable to the Government. 250 In particular, witness Lucero Bolaños, a member of Congress present at the session of November 25, 2004, indicated that: 248 In this regard, the European Court of Human Rights has taken into account the real purpose or grounds that the State authorities had when exercising their functions, in order to determine whether or not there had been a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. For example, in the Case of Gusinskiy v. Russia, the European Court considered that the restriction of the victim’s detention, authorized by Article 5.1(c) of the European Convention was applied not only in order to make him appear before the competent judicial authority, considering that there were reasonable indications of the commission of an offense, but also in order to oblige him to sell his Company to the State. In the case of Cebotari v. Moldavia, it declared that Article 18 of the European Convention had been violated because the Government had not convinced the Court that there were reasonable indications that the applicant had committed an offense, and the Court concluded that the real purpose of the criminal proceeding and the applicant’s detention was to put pressure on him and, thus, prevent his company “Oferta Plus” from suing before the Court. Finally, in the case of Lutsenko v. Ukraine, the European Court determined that the deprivation of liberty of the applicant, authorized by Article 5.1(c), had been applied not only in order to make him appear before the competent judicial authority, because there were reasonable indications that he had committed an offense, but also for other reasons related to the prosecutor’s intention of accusing the applicant for publicly expressing his opposition to the charges against him. Cf. European Court of Human Rights, Case of Gusinskiy v. Russia, Judgment of 19 May 2004, paras. 71 to 78; Case of Cebotari v. Moldavia, Judgment of 13 February 2008, paras. 46 to 53, and Case of Lutsenko v. Ukraine, Judgment of 3 July 2012, paras. 100 to 110. 249 The Inter-American Court has indicated that “direct evidence, either testimonial or documentary, is not the only evidence that may legitimately be considered to provide grounds for the judgment. Circumstantial evidence, indications and presumptions may be used, provided that consistent conclusions concerning the facts can be inferred from them.” Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 130. 250 Cf. Affidavits prepared by Simón Zabala Guzmán on March 12, 2013 (merits file, tome III, folio 1241), Pablo Enrique Herrería Bonnet on March 17, 2013 (file of annexes to the report, tome III, folio 1263), Manuel Jaramillo Córdova on March 6, 2013 (merits file, tome III, folio 1302), Jaime Manuel Nogales Izurieta on March 4, 2013 (merits file, tome III, folio 1322), Lucero Bolaños on March 13, 2013 (merits file, tome III, folio 1369); Newspaper articles “Buscan reestructurar TC” [Re-structure of CT sought] in “El Telégrafo” of November 23, 2004 (file of annexes to the report, tome III, folio 1129), and “Gobierno busca reestructurar el TC” [Government seeks to restructure CT] in “La Hora” of November 23, 2004 (file of annexes to the report, tome III, folio 1130). 62