9 or interest of the complainant. That remedy can also be invoked against administrative resolutions that harm private rights established or recognized by a statute, so long as such resolutions were adopted as a result of some general provisions, and that this violates the law from which those rights arise. 37. In particular, the State indicated that the petitioners filed an amparo action but that the adequate remedy was an unconstitutionality suit for as it is a legislative action, an action can be brought against it only by a remedy whose effect is erga omnes. 38. Additionally, the State argued that the judges who heard the amparo motions filed by the petitioners and the National Congress met the standards of “competence,” “impartiality,” and “independence” required by Article 8(1) of the Convention, and that the petitioners did not prove otherwise with objective evidence or coherent and conclusive indicia. In addition, the State indicated that all the administrative and judicial remedies pursued by the petitioners were resolved and rejected on reasonable and non-arbitrary procedural grounds, which is why the petitioners’ arguments merely reveal their disagreement with the unfavorable results obtained. 39. As regards the principle of legality enshrined in Article 9 of the American Convention, the State held this case does not involve a removal from office, but a legislative resolution that declares illegal the petitioners’ appointment as members of the Constitutional Court. In addition, the State considered that the resolution of the Congress “that declares this illegality does not constitute an administrative, political, civil, or criminal sanction.” 40. As regards political rights, the State indicated that the facts set forth do not constitute violations of the rights enshrined in Article 23 of the American Convention. Moreover, the State did not present specific arguments with respect to the violations of the rights enshrined in Article 24 of the American Convention. IV. PROVEN FACTS A. Designation of the judges of the Constitutional Court 41. Article 275 of the Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador, of 1998, establishes that the Constitutional Court, with national jurisdiction, shall have its seat in Quito. It shall be made up of nine judges, who shall have their respective alternates. They shall perform their functions for four years and may be re-elected. The scope of jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court is established in Article 276 of the Constitution. 4 4 Article 276 of the Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador establishes: The Constitutional Court shall have the authority to: 1. Hear and resolve unconstitutionality suits, on substantive and procedural issues, that may be filed regarding organic and regular statutes, decree-laws, decrees, ordinances, statutes, regulations, and resolutions, issued by organs of the State institutions, and suspend their effects in full or in part. 2. Hear and rule on the unconstitutionality of the administrative acts of all public authorities. A declaration of unconstitutionality entails the revocation of the act, without prejudice to the administrative agency adopting the measures necessary to preserve respect for the provisions of the Constitution. 3. Hear the resolutions that deny habeas corpus, habeas data, and amparo actions, and appeals provided for in amparo actions. 4. Rule on the objections of unconstitutionality made by the President of the Republic in the process of adopting laws. 5. Rule in keeping with the Constitution, international treaties or conventions prior to their approval by the National Congress. 6. Settle conflicts over jurisdiction or powers assigned by the Constitution. 7. Exercise all other powers conferred on it by the Constitution and statutes. The rulings of judicial bodies shall not be subject to review by the Constitutional Court.