20. First, the Court declares that the dispute over the violation of Article 8 of the Convention has ceased, given that the judges were removed from their positions without being afforded an opportunity to appear before the National Congress. However disputes persist on other aspects related to Article 8 of the Convention. 21. With respect to the State’s acknowledgement of the violation of Article 9 of the Convention, based on the fact that Ecuadorian law did not establish specific grounds for dismissing the judges from office, “which, through the National Congress’s resolution could have been understood as an ad-hoc proceeding of a punitive nature,” the Court considers that said acquiescence does not address several arguments presented by the Commission and the representatives on this matter (infra paras. 127 and 128). For example, the representatives mentioned the existence of a proceeding for sanctioning Supreme Court justices and stated that the grounds for such sanctions were very broad and undefined (infra para. 128). 22. Similarly, the Court notes that the State acknowledged its international responsibility for the violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 24 and 25 of the Convention. Its acknowledgement regarding Article 25 of the Convention was made under the premise that the Supreme Court justices allegedly did not have access to “a simple prompt and effective remedy”, given that “in the case of the former judges, the State did not provide them with an effective and appropriate legal remedy against the National Congress Resolution of 2004, which would determine whether this constituted a human rights violation.” However, the acknowledgement of responsibility on this point is not clear regarding the specific facts which produced that violation and were alleged by the Commission and the representatives, for which reason there are still disputes regarding that article. 23. In relation to Article 24 of the Convention, the State accepted its international responsibility for the fact that “the former judges did not have access to the action of constitutional amparo against the National Congress’s resolution, unlike the rest of the population.” On this point the representatives offered arguments concerning the alleged discrimination practiced, given that some judges were dismissed while others were not. Therefore, the dispute on this point continues. 24. Furthermore, there is still a dispute regarding the alleged violations of Articles 1(1), 2 and 23 of the American Convention, which were not acknowledged by the State. There is also disagreement over possible reparations, costs and expenses; therefore, the Court shall decide on appropriate measures of reparation in this case, in the relevant chapter of this Judgment. 25. Considering that disputes remain with respect to several points related to some of the facts, the alleged violations of Articles 8, 9, 23, 24 and 25 in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention, and regarding the corresponding measures of reparation, the Court deems it necessary to issue a Judgment that establishes the facts that occurred, specifies the scope of the violations acknowledged and rules on the remaining disputes, where pertinent, for the resolution of this case. The Court emphasizes that this ruling serves to provide reparation for the victims, avoid the repetition of similar facts and, in general, satisfy the purposes of the inter-American jurisdiction on human rights. 14 V PRELIMINARY OBJECTION 14 Cf. Case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2008. Series C No. 190, para. 26, and Case García and Family v. Venezuela, para. 24. 9