candidates was published so that anyone who so wished might present objections and, as appropriate, challenge the selected candidates. The Qualifying Committee then transmitted the roll of eligible candidates to the Speaker of the Congress, on the basis of which the National Congress appointed the members of the Supreme Court at their sessions of October 1 and 2, 1997. 9. The petitioners say that the cooptation system for the appointment of new justices from 1997 onward and the indefinite nature of their tenure were enshrined in Article 9 of the reforms to the 1979 Constitution, which provided for the replacement of the text of Article 129 with the following wording: The members of the Supreme Court of Justice shall not be subject to a limited tenure of office. Their termination shall be on the grounds prescribed by the Constitution and the law. When a vacancy arises the plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice shall appoint the new justice by a vote in favor of two thirds of its members, with due consideration to the criteria of professionalism and judicial career, and in accordance with the law. In the appointment of new justices, the choice shall alternate between professionals who have held judgeships, lectured at university, or engaged in the free practice of the law, in that order. 10. The petitioners hold that the reform of Article 129 of the previous Constitution concerning the cooptation system and their indefinite tenure was included in Article 202 of the 1998 Constitution. The cooptation system was used to renew almost one sixth of the Supreme Court of Justice between 1997 and 2004. In conclusion, the petitioners say that the justices were appointed on an indefinite basis in keeping with the Constitution and set procedures. 11. According to the petitioners, on December 8, 2004, a special session of the Ecuadorian Congress was held, convened by the President of the Republic. They say that in the course of that session the Congress adopted parliamentary resolution 25-181, which dismissed all 31 justices of the Supreme Court based on a “summary and arbitrary” proceeding that disregarded Article 202 of the Constitution. Of those justices, four were later appointed to the Supreme Court under its new membership, while former Justice Bermeo Castillo refused the appointment. The resolution decides: To declare the TERMINATION of the justices of the Supreme Court of Justice and their respective associate judges, who failed to resign from office in January 2003, as provided in transitory provision 25 Constitution in force; and, to APPOINT the below-mentioned jurists to replace them (...)2. 12. On the subject of admissibility, the petitioners invoke the exception at Article 46 (2) (b) of the American Convention inasmuch as they consider that they were prevented from exhausting domestic remedies. They say in that connection that on December 2, 2004, the Constitutional Tribunal adopted a decision in which it ruled that [I]n order to suspend the effects of a parliamentary resolution, such as [resolution] 25160, passed by the Hon. National Congress on November 25, 2004, for alleged violation of the Constitution, whether by content or form, the only admissible legal action is an action for unconstitutionality instituted before the Constitutional Tribunal.3 13. The petitioners argue that an action for unconstitutionality is neither suitable nor effective for challenging the act of termination to the extent that an alleged victim cannot appear on their own behalf since they require the signatures of 1,000 citizens in order to bring the action or the intervention of the Ombudsman. They say that it is also unsuitable because it is not 2 Parliamentary resolution 25-181 published in Official Gazette 485 of December 20, 2004. 3 Adopted by the full Tribunal and published in Official Gazette 477 of December 8, 2004. 4