Tribunal sought to prevent the effectiveness of the remedies of amparo that might be filed against the removal the Supreme Court of Justice that was imminent. The statements of the new members of the Constitutional Tribunal (supra para. 108) reveal the interest in not disputing the decisions adopted by Congress with regard to the high courts. 215. During the impeachment procedure several types of irregularities occurred in the proceeding conducted against some of the judges according to the laws in force at the time of the facts (supra paras. 67 to 73). Thus, articles 92 and 93 of the Law on the Organization of the Legislative Function indicated that the time frame for conducting the impeachment proceedings after the presentation of the respective motion of censure was from 5 to 10 days in cases of regular sessions of Congress and 30 days in case of special sessions of Congress, and that the latter time frame could be extended for up to a further 60 days (supra para. 70). However, when the impeachment proceeding commenced, these time frames had already expired. In this regard, congressmen Villacís and Proaño Maya withdrew their motions of censure owing to the expiry of the time frames (supra para. 87). Nevertheless, the statements about possible irregularities in relation to compliance with the time frame regarding the decision on the motions of censure submitted by several members of Congress260 did not result in any kind of decision by Congress on the possible illegality of the proceedings. 216. When deciding on these impeachment proceedings, the context of the political crisis surrounding the decision to terminate the members of the Constitutional Tribunal on November 25, 2004, was ongoing (supra para. 109). 217. Regarding the vote taken on December 8, 2004, a series of presumed irregularities were mentioned: a) Several members of Congress indicated that the call made by the President of the Republic for a special session and to repeat the vote on the impeachment proceedings was irregular because Congress was not in recess. Indeed, article 133 of the Constitution stated that “during periods of recess, the President of Congress or the President of the Republic, may call for special sessions of the National Congress” (supra para. 89); b) The vote was held, even though a similar vote had been held in the session of December 1 and the motions had not obtained sufficient votes, and therefore it had been declared that the “motion was rejected” (supra paras. 87 and 88); c) Regarding the fact that an application for reconsideration was not lodged, congressman Posso, whose motion of censure of April 7, 2004, had not received sufficient votes for the motion to be approved, indicated that the “two legal options [were] the rectification of the vote [held on December 1, 2004,] or the 260 In this regard, congressman Villacís Maldonado stated during the session on December 1 that, “[i]ndeed, this was […] presented by the MPD in the same package as this request to impeach the members of the Constitutional Tribunal. [But] 18 months ha[d] passed since these charges were submitted […] on June 16, 2003, [and …] the time frame indicated in the Law on the Organization of the Legislative Function ha[s] expired, […, so that they] also withdr[e]w [their] motion of censure.” National Congress Record No. 24-326 of December 1, 2004 (merits file, tome I, folios 435 and 436). Also, during the same session, congressman Proaño Maya stated that “it harm[ed] the institutional reputation, attempting to process an action that, in addition, [was] totally time-barred […] and [did] not achieve its legal effects […]. Since the reasons that gave rise to the impeachment have been rectified, public opinion should be informed that it was not appropriate to continue with this parliamentary action, because it was time-barred and inopportune.” National Congress Record No. 24-326 of December 1, 2004 (merits file, tome I, folios 434 and 435). 65