28 respect, the lack of certainty with regard to the grounds for removal of the judges, in addition to raising doubts as to the independence of the judiciary, may give rise to arbitrary actions of abuse of authority with direct repercussions on the rights to due process and to freedom from ex post facto laws. 107. In particular, based on the facts that the Commission has considered proven in this report, the impeachment proceedings that began in 2003 then went forward in 2004, after the time allowed by regulation. This circumstance allows one to consider that the decision to impeach the judges, almost a year-and-a-half after the first censure motion and in the context of the debate on the termination resolution, was politically motivated, beyond the task of oversight of the breaches or infractions allegedly committed by the judges. 108. With respect to the new vote of impeachment on December 8, the Commission considers that the law of Ecuador stipulates that the vote in the impeachment proceeding concludes the day of the hearing with the censure or absolution of the accused, so it is difficult to understand the nature of the second vote. In this regard, from the transcript of the legislative debate it appears that the sole objective of having the second vote was to modify a final vote previously adopted based on the argument first, that in one case a vote in that regard had not been obtained, and second, that the vote had not been conducted properly. 109. In summary, due to the creation of an ad hoc mechanism not provided for by law to determine the termination of the judges of the Constitutional Court, the lack of definition or certainty with respect to the grounds of their removal, and the double vote in the impeachment proceeding, the Commission concludes that the State of Ecuador did violate the right enshrined in Article 9 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 2 thereof, with respect to Miguel Camba Campos, Oswaldo Cevallos Bueno, Enrique Herrería Bonnet, Jaime Nogales Izurieta, Luis Rojas Bajaña, Mauro Terán Cevallos, Simón Zabala Guzmán, and Manuel Jaramillo Córdova. 3. Analysis of whether the State incurred in a violation of the rights established in Article 8 of the Convention 110. Furthermore, as regards the right to be judged by a competent authority, the Court has established that people have “the right to be heard by regular courts, following procedures previously established 83 (…) to prevent persons from being judged by special tribunals set up for the case, or ad hoc.” 84 Throughout this report, the IACHR has concluded that at the time the victims were appointed, the only legal mechanism for their removal prior to the end of their term was an impeachment proceeding, in keeping with Article 130 of the National Constitution and the relevant articles of the Organic Law on the Legislative Function. 111. In this report the IACHR has indicated that the use of the institution of impeachment by the National Congress is a legitimate means of exercising checks and balances in a State under the rule of law. The State argued that it was not a removal (destitución), but rather was done to cure an illegality committed by Congress at the time of designating these judges. Nonetheless, the Commission considers that independent of the motive alleged, the resolution by the National Congress implied the removal of the judges from their positions through an ad hoc mechanism created for that purpose, beyond the oversight powers of the National Congress. 83 I/A Court H. R., Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of August 5, 2008, Series C No. 182, para. 50; Citing: Case of Castillo Petruzzi v. Peru, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of May 30, 1999, Series C No. 52, para. 129; and No. 5 of the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary. 84 I/A Court H. R., Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of August 5, 2008, Series C No. 182, para. 50.