A.2 Considerations of the Court 131. The Court recalls that, on July 13, 2001, the Comptroller General’s Office issued a report entitled “Indications of criminal responsibility from the special review of the administrative and financial operations of the National Police General Command,” Report No. 32-DA.1-2001-466, which concluded that there had been a series of irregularities in the contractual procedures for the acquisition of automotive spare parts and the reparation of vehicles of the National Police (supra para. 43), in which the presumed victims who, at the time of the facts, were officers of the National Police of Ecuador, were implicated (supra para. 42). This report provided the grounds for opening the police criminal proceedings to which the presumed victims were subjected. The Commission alleged that the presumed victims were not informed of the said report at the time of its preparation. In this regard, the Court cannot be certain whether all the presumed victims were informed of it prior to the police criminal proceedings; however, it is clear that, at least, it was notified to them when the proceedings were opened.135 Consequently, the Court does not have sufficient elements to rule on the alleged violation of Articles 8(2)(b) and 8(2)(c) of the American Convention. Nevertheless, given the relevance of the said Report No. 32-DA.1-2001-466, and pursuant to the standards established by the Court in relation to the right of defense, the Court points out that the presumed victims should have taken part in the review conducted by the Comptroller’s Office136 and been aware of the contents of the report prior to the opening of the police criminal proceedings in order to exercise their right of defense. 132. In addition, in the instant case, the dispute is centered on determining whether the State violated the right to a competent, impartial and independent judge or court in the police criminal trial. The Court will now examine the relevant aspects as regards whether the police criminal jurisdiction offered sufficient guarantees of independence and impartiality. 133. The Court has indicated that the independence of judges is guaranteed by their irremovability, an appropriate appointment procedure that takes into account their accomplishments and their legal training, and the guarantee against external pressure.137 The fact that the Executive 135 According to the affidavits made by the presumed victims, the Court notes that: (a) Mr. Villarroel Merino indicated that he “did contest Audit Report No. 32-DA.1-2001-466, issued by the Comptroller General’s Office on July 13, 2001, […] [but his arguments] were rejected,” without indicating the date on which this was done. Cf. Affidavit made by Jorge Humberto Villarroel Merino on February 9, 2021, supra; (b) Mr. Cevallos Moreno stated that he “was aware of Report No. 32-DA.12001-466.” Cf. Affidavit made by Mario Romel Cevallos Moreno on February 9, 2021, supra; (c) Mr. López Ortiz indicated that he “only found out about the results of the report with indications of criminal responsibility when [he] was criminally prosecuted, violating [his] right of defense.” Cf. Affidavit made by Fernando Marcelo López Ortiz on February 9, 2021, supra; (d) Mr. Vinueza Pánchez indicated that Report No. 32-DA.1-2001-466 corresponded to the trial. Cf. Statement of Alfonso Patricio Vinueza Pánchez on February 9, 2021, supra, and (e) Messrs. Ascázubi Albán and Coloma Gaibor did not refer to Report No. 32-DA.1-2001-466 of the Comptroller’s Office. Cf. Statements of Leoncio Amílcar Ascázubi Albán and Jorge Enrique Coloma Gaibor on February 9, 2021, supra. It is worth mentioning that in the affidavit submitted to the Court by Mr. Vinueza Pánchez, he alleged that he was unaware of the special review conducted by the Comptroller’s Office, even though, according to the presumed victim, article 296 of the Organic Law of Financial Administration and Control, in force at the time, established that “[d]uring an audit or special review, the government’s auditors shall be in constant communication with the employees of the entity or agency concerned, affording them the opportunity to present documentary evidence, as well as pertinent verbal information on the matters being examined. Without prejudice to compliance with the provisions of articles 278, 286 and 342 of this law, the auditors will disclose the provisional results of each part of the review, as soon as they are ready, to the relevant officials for the following purposes: (1) To allow them to present their opinions; (2) To ensure that the government’s auditors have all possible information and evidence during their work; (3) To avoid additional information or evidence being presented after the audit has been concluded; (4) To facilitate the immediate start of the necessary corrective measures by the head of the entity and the officials in charge, including the implementation of improvements based on the recommendations, without having to wait for the report to be issued […].” Cf. Affidavit made by Alfonso Patricio Vinueza Pánchez on February 9, 2021, supra. 136 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, paras. 70 and 72, and Case of Martínez Esquivia v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations. Judgment of October 6, 2020. Series C No. 412, para. 85. 137 34