7 Supreme Court of Justice that was not independent or impartial, and whose judges had also been removed unconstitutionally. 27. As regards the obligations established in Article 2 of the American Convention, the petitioners argued that control of the Constitutional Court was performed by means of an impeachment proceeding, and that the National Congress has used this instrument repeatedly as a pressure tactic. In addition, the petitioners indicated that there is a proposed Organic Law on the Constitutional Court, submitted in 2001, which would be an important means of regulating the operations of the Constitutional Court and relations with Congress, yet Congress has not given impetus to or approved the bill in a reasonable time. Moreover, the petitioners argued that while the Constitution provides for the impeachment of the members of the Constitutional Court, it does not set forth the grounds for which it should prosecute them, does not meet the guarantees of independence and impartiality, nor does it foresee the possibility of appealing the decisions of the National Congress when it acts as a judicial body. In addition, they alleged a violation of Article 2 of the Convention as a result of the adoption of measures contrary to the Convention, such as the resolution of termination (resolución de cese), the two calls to impeachment, the impediment established by the Constitutional Court in terms of the presentation of the amparo actions, the call to special sessions, and the constitutional powers of the Congress to appoint and remove the judges. 28. Finally, during the merits stage the petitioners continued to submit arguments on the alleged violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 23 and 24 of the American Convention, even though in the admissibility phase, the Commission found that the facts described did not tend to establish violations of those provisions. 3 29. Regarding Article 23 of the Convention, they contend that Ecuador’s Constitution recognizes the right of both access to and holding public office and discharging public functions. In the petitioners’ view, the termination resolution adopted by the National Congress prevented them from the continued exercise of their right to perform public functions. As for Article 24 of the American Convention, the petitioners indicated that they received different and unjustified treatment at two moments: (i) the termination of seven of the nine principal members who made up the Constitutional Court implied a different, exclusionary, restrictive, and preferential treatment, because they were not supportive of the Government, and (ii) when the resolution of the Constitutional Court left the Supreme Court justices and the Constitutional Court judges in a state of termination, as the only citizens who could not file for amparo constitutional relief to defend their human rights. According to the petitioners, no objective or reasonable grounds were given for this treatment. B. The State 30. The State argued that the former members of the Constitutional Court were not removed for having committed any constitutional or statutory violation in the performance of their functions, but rather they were terminated (“cesados”) for having been elected without heeding the Constitution in force, as the National Congress recognized by resolution No. R-25-160 of November 25, 2004. 31. In that regard, the State indicated that on November 25, 2004, the National Congress convened a regular permanent morning session in which some legislators stated that the election of the members of the Constitutional Court, in early 2003, had been illegal since the procedure was not in keeping with Article 275 of the Constitution. In other words, they were not 3 See: IACHR, Report No 5/07, Petition 161-05, Admissibility, Miguel Camba Campos and others, Ecuador, February 27, 2007, para. 36 and operative paragraph 2.