it be legally envisaged, but it must be adequate to establish whether a violation of human rights has been committed, and provide what is necessary to remedy it. 43 62. The Commission has already declared that the State removed the alleged victim as a form of de facto sanction, in violation of the principle of judicial independence, the guarantees of due process and the principle of legality. According to the proven facts, Mr. Aguinaga Aillón did not have any mechanism to question the decision to remove him due to two fundamental reasons. Firstly, as already analyzed, because the procedure followed was not provided for in the legislation and therefore there was no appeal to challenge the decision. Secondly, because - as established in the proven facts - the State issued a resolution to obstruct a possible amparo remedy against the resolution of Congress. In that sense, the only remedy available was the unconstitutionality action, which had to be resolved by the new Constitutional Tribunal appointed precisely as an effect of Resolution 25-160, thus preventing any chance of an impartial and effective decision, since it would involve a determination on the constitutionality of the act that enabled its own appointment. 44 63. In light of the foregoing reasons, the Commission concludes that the Ecuadorian State violated Articles 8.2 h) and 25.1 of the American Convention in relation to the obligations established in Articles 1.1 and 2 of the same instrument, to the detriment of Carlos Julio Aguinaga Aillón. V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 64. The Commission concludes that the Ecuadorian State is responsible for the violation of the right to judicial guarantees, the principle of legality and judicial protection, enshrined in Articles 8.1, 8.2 b), 8.2 c), 8.2 h), 9 and 25.1 of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations established in Articles 1.1 and 2 of the same instrument, to the detriment of Carlos Julio Aguinaga Aillón. 65. Based on the analysis and conclusions of this report, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS RECOMMENDS THAT THE STATE OF ECUADOR 1. Reinstate Carlos Julio Aguinaga Aillón in a position similar to that previously held, with the same remuneration, social benefits and rank comparable to those comparable to the ones that he would be entitled to today had he not been removed, for the period of time pending of his mandate. If for objective and wellfounded reasons reinstatement is not possible, pay an alternative compensation. 2. Repair in an integral manner the consequences of the violations found in the present report, including the necessary compensation and satisfaction in connection with the material and non-material damage suffered by the victim. I/A Court H.R., Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado - Alfaro et al.) v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 158. Para. 125; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125. Para. 61; I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Five Pensioners” v. Peru. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98. Para. 136. 44 See IACHR, Report No. 99/11, Case 12.597, Merits Report, Miguel Camba Campos et. al. “Members of the Constitutional Tribunal”, Ecuador, July 22, 2011, paras. 134-136. 43 12