13 were: 20 votes in favor, 21 votes against, 43 abstentions, therefore, 41 valid votes. Once the results were proclaimed by the Secretariat, the President declared as follows: “there is no resolution.” The second motion corresponds chronologically to that of June 13, 2003, presented by legislator Luis Villacís Maldonado, who verbally withdrew the motion in said session of December 1, 2004. The third corresponds to legislator Marco Proaño Maya, presented on June 16, 2003, who also withdrew the censure motion on November 30, 2004, with Official Note 663. The fourth censure motion corresponds to legislator Antonio Posso Salgado, who in the session of December 1 to which we are referring stated as follows: “Mr. President, fellow legislators, I believe that one must be practical, let’s not get into another vote on the same question, it’s clear, there is already a pronouncement by Congress on this matter, what now makes sense is for us to vote on the spirit of the other aspect that has to do with the D’Hon[dt] issue, with a single additional vote, we can even culminate this session.” The President of the Congress stated and ruled: “and so it is, I believe that this initiative is properly before us, it refers to the same issue raised by legislators Posso and Serrano, accordingly a vote and this session will conclude. Read the other motion and take the nominal vote. The two motions that come together on the same subject and it will be a single vote.” As ruled, the vote on motions five and six in chronological order were taken together, that is, the one introduced by legislators Segundo Serrano and Antonio Posso. This censure motion obtained the following results, 50 votes in favor, 20 votes against, seven abstentions, therefore 70 valid votes. Once the results were proclaimed, the President stated as follows: “The motion is denied, because there are not sufficient valid votes, but there are not 51 to approve the motion to censure.…’” 22 53. In the course of the session, one of the accusing legislators who withdrew the motion to censure the judges understood that pursuing the impeachment proceedings was useless, time-barred, and untimely insofar as “there are already consummated facts.” 23 Even though the censure motions were denied in the four impeachment proceedings against the terminated judges of the Constitutional Court, Resolution R-25-160 were not overturned. D. Decision of the Constitutional Court on the inadmissibility of the amparo actions 54. On December 2, 2004, the Constitutional Court issued a ruling in response to a request made by the President of the Republic “to prevent trial judges from admitting for processing constitutional amparo actions against Parliamentary Resolution 25-160, adopted by the National Congress on November 25, 2004.” The Constitutional Court resolved: To rule that to suspend the effects of a parliamentary resolution, such as No. 25-160, adopted by the National Congress on November 25, 2004, for an alleged violation of the Constitution, in substance or in form, the only action admissible is an unconstitutionality suit, which must be placed before the Constitutional Court, in line with the resolution of the Supreme Court of Justice adopted on June 27, 2001, and published in Official Register No. 378 on July 27 of that year; and that any amparo remedy lodged with the country’s courts in connection with the aforesaid resolution must be rejected outright and ruled inadmissible by the judges, since to do otherwise would to be admit proceedings against express law, which would lead to the corresponding judicial actions. 24 55. The Supreme Court’s resolution of June 27, 2001, referred to by the Constitutional Court in its decision of December 2, 2004, was a ruling to clarify the guidelines applicable in 22 Annex 14. Transcript of the recorded version of the regular permanent morning session of the National Congress corresponding to December 8, 2004. Minutes 24-001-IV (annex to petitioners’ brief of May 15, 2007). Congress of the Republic, Certification by the Secretary General of December 2, 2004. Ref. Official Note No. 371-HAHV-CN-2004 (annex to the petitioners’ initial petition). 23 Annex 15. Transcript of the recorded version of the regular permanent morning session of the National Congress corresponding to Wednesday, December 1, 2004 (Minutes 24-326), p. 9 (annex to the additional observations made by the petitioners on May 15, 2007). 24 Annex 16. Decision of the Constitutional Court, dated December 2, 2004. (Annex to the initial petition).