reconsideration at that time or in a future session.”261 Congressman Posso explained that this had not occurred and that, therefore, “the matter ha[d] concluded, ended, and the members of Congress c[ould] do nothing, absolutely nothing in this regard, once the normal process of an impeachment proceeding ha[d] finalized. Holding another vote on this issue […] would be an unfortunate precedent in Ecuadorian legislation.”262 Furthermore, witness Lucero Bolaños indicated that “[t]he session of [December 2, 2004,] was the only session during which it was possible to reconsider the vote in relation to the impeachment proceeding.”263 In addition, witness Torres Torres indicated that Congress “did not reconsider what had been decided and voted” on December 1, 2004.264 The session of December 1, 2004, had closed without the members of Congress lodging an application for reconsideration in relation to the presumed inadmissibility of joindering two motions of censure, and this was not filed the following day either; hence it was not admissible to re-open the vote of December 8; d) As on December 1, 2004, even though he had not voted in favor of the decision on the D´Hondt method, Judge Oswaldo Cevallos Bueno was again the subject of the motion of censure presented by congressman Segundo Serrano Serrano, and when this was voted on again, it received 57 votes in favor,265 and e) The new vote on the motions of censure against some of the judges was held during the same session in which the National Congress declared the termination of the justices of the Supreme Court of Justice (supra para. 97), without having announced this intention previously on the agenda. 218. Regarding the vote of December 1, 2004, the member and President of the Tribunal, Oswaldo Cevallos Bueno, was included in one of the motions of censure in relation to Ruling No.025-2003-TC. However, Oswaldo Cevallos Bueno had not taken part in this decision (supra para. 78). Furthermore, another serious irregularity is that, on December 1, 2004, the four motions of censure had already been submitted to a vote and had not received sufficient votes. Despite this, on December 8, 2004, Congress decided to re-open the vote. Even though in one of the repeated votes it was indicated that this was held owing to the presumed undue joinder of two of the motions of censure, when re-opening the motions of censure concerning the fourteenth salary, no legal grounds whatsoever were indicated to justify the new vote (supra para. 92). 219. Taking into account the preceding considerations concerning the sessions of Congress of November 25, December 1 and December 8, 2004, in the instant case the Court observes that the judges were removed by a resolution of the National Congress, which lacked competence in this regard (supra para. 180), by a decision without any legal grounds (supra para. 180), and without being heard (supra para. 183). Furthermore, a significant number of irregularities occurred during the impeachment proceedings: these proceedings were based on decisions relating to control of constitutionality adopted by the 261 682). 262 682). National Congress Record No. 24-001-IV of December 8, 2004 (file of annexes to the report, tome II, folio National Congress Record No. 24-001-IV of December 8, 2004 (file of annexes to the report, tome II, folio 263 Affidavit prepared by witness Lucero Bolaños on May 13, 2013 (merits file, tome III, folio 1373). 264 Testimony of witness Torres Torres (merits file, tome III, folio 1363). 265 National Congress Record No. 24-001-IV of December 8, 2004 (file of annexes to the report, tome II, folios 708, 709 and 710). 66