232. In this regard, on December 2, 2004, the recently appointed Constitutional Tribunal issued a decision in response to a request by the President of the Republic in which it ruled that “in order to suspend the effects of a parliamentary resolution, including No. 25-160, adopted by the National Congress on November 25, 2004, owing to the supposed violation of the Constitution, based on form or substance, the only action admissible is the action on unconstitutionality that must be filed before the Constitutional Tribunal” (supra para. 99). This meant that, if the domestic judges received an action for amparo against the decision declaring the termination of the members of the Constitutional Tribunal or similar legislative decisions, they were ordered to “reject it outright and not to admit it, because, to the contrary, they would be hearing a case contrary to an explicit law and this would entail the corresponding judicial actions” (supra para. 99). 233. In fact, the members of the Constitutional Tribunal filed five remedies of amparo in order to contest the legality of the decision by which they were dismissed and, in the five cases, these amparos were rejected outright (supra para. 212). The reasoning given by the judges of the amparo was the decision taken by the new Constitutional Tribunal (supra paras. 102 and 104 to 107). Furthermore, it was proved that, in the case of several of the remedies of amparo, a member of Congress intervened and reminded the judges hearing these appeals that judges who admitted them could be subject to judicial actions or disciplinary sanctions (supra para. 108). In this regard, it is clear that the decision taken by the new Constitutional Tribunal prevented the judges who had been removed from making use of the remedy of amparo in order to try and contest the legality and constitutionality of the decision of Congress and, in this way, protect their rights. 234. In view of the foregoing, by express mandate of the new Constitutional Tribunal, the action on unconstitutionality was available to the presumed victims. Regarding this action, it should be underscored that, pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador in force at that time, the filing of this action required, either that it be supported by the signature of 1,000 persons, “exercising their political rights,”279 or that it be supported by a favorable report of the Ombudsman.280 It should also be pointed out that, the purpose of this action was to examine the formal and substantial conformity of a norm or an administrative decision with the Constitution,281 but it did not offer the possibility of 279 Cf. Article 277(5) of the Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador of August 11, 1998 (file of annexes to the answering brief, tome I, folio 3708). 280 Cf. Article 277 of the 1998 Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador: Actions on unconstitutionality may be presented by: 1. The President of the Republic, in the cases established in Art. 276(1). 2. The National Congress, following a resolution by the majority of its members, in the cases established in subparagraphs (1) and (2) of this article. 3. The Supreme Court of Justice, following a resolution by the Court in Plenary, in the cases described in subparagraphs (1) and (2) of the same article. 4. The provincial councils or the municipal councils, in the cases indicated in the same article. 5. One thousand citizens exercising their political rights, or any person following a favorable report of the Ombudsman on its admissibility, in the cases of subparagraphs (1 and (2) of the same article. Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador of August 11, 1998 (file of annexes to the answering brief, tome I, folio 3708). 281 Cf. Article 276 of the 1998 Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador: The Constitutional Tribunal shall have competence: 1. To examine and decide actions on unconstitutionality, in form or substance, that are filed concerning organic and ordinary laws, decree-laws, decrees, ordinances, statutes, regulations and resolutions issued by organs of the institutions of the State, and to suspend their effects totally or partially. 2. To examine and decide on the unconstitutionality of the administrative decisions of any public authority. The declaration of unconstitutionality shall result in the revocation of the decision, without prejudice to the administrative organ adopting the necessary measures to preserve respect for the constitutional norms. Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador of August 11, 1998 (file of annexes to the answering brief, tome I, folios 307 and 3708). 71