28 guarantees of freedom from ex post facto laws and due process set out in Articles 8.1, 8.2, and 9 of the American Convention. 97 2. Analysis whether the State incurred in a violation of the rights established in Article 9 of the Convention 109. Regarding the freedom from ex post facto laws, the Commission has already concluded that on the dates the Supreme Court justices were appointed (October 1997) and terminated (December 8, 2004), no regulations governing the constitutionally established systems for terminations and vacancies at the Supreme Court of Justice were in place. Neither were there any regulations in place for the disciplinary system applicable to members of the Court. The Commission believes that these problems in the regulatory framework meant that the Supreme Court justices were denied prior knowledge of the grounds for which they could be removed from office, the competent authority for doing so, and the applicable procedure. 110. As a result of this situation, in a political context of heightened tension between the different branches of government, an ad hoc mechanism – provided for neither in the Constitution nor in law – was created to terminate the functions of all the Supreme Court justices on the grounds that their mandates had expired. That was in spite of that fact, already established in this report, that their appointment was for an indefinite period, subject to grounds for removal to be determined by law. Despite that situation, Congress justified the mechanism used to terminate them through Transitory Provision No. 25 of the Constitution that came into force on August 10, 1998, which provides: The officers and members of agencies appointed by the National Congress and the Comptroller General of the State appointed for a four-year period as of August 10, 1998, under the provisions of this Constitution, shall remain in those positions until January 2003. 98 (emphasis added) 111. The Commission again notes that the victims in this case were appointed by means of the procedure established in the transitory provisions of the constitutional amendments adopted on July 23, 1997: that is, before the date indicated in Transitory Provision No. 25 of the 1998 Constitution. Consequently, the expiration of date of January 2003 referred to by Congress did not apply to them, particularly since, as has been noted, the constitutional amendments in force at the time of their appointment clearly indicated that they were to enjoy indefinite tenure in their positions. 112. To summarize, given the failure to regulate the situation of the Supreme Court justices, the creation of an ad hoc mechanism not provided for by law to order their termination, and the clear lack of legal and constitutional grounds for the National Congress’s interpretation of Transitory Provision No. 25 of the 1998 Constitution, 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 Hugo Quintana Coello, Alfredo Contreras Villavicencio, Teodoro Coello Vásquez, Santiago Andrade Ubidia, José Julio Benítez Astudillo, Armando Bermeo Castillo, Eduardo Brito Mieles, Nicolás Castro Patiño, Galo Galarza Paz, Luis Heredia Moreno, Estuardo Hurtado Larrea, Ángel Lescano Fiallo, Galo Pico Mantilla, Jorge Ramírez Álvarez, Carlos Riofrío Corral, José Vicente Troya Jaramillo, Rodrigo Varea Avilez, Jaime Velasco Dávila, Miguel Villacís 97 See: I/A Court H. R., Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, Judgment of January 31, 2001, Series C No. 71, para. 74; and 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. 44. “In other words, the authority in charge of the procedure to remove a judge must behave impartially in the procedure established to this end and allow the latter to exercise the right of defense.” 98 Annex 5. Constitution of Ecuador, http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Ecuador/ecuador98.html. adopted on June 5, 1998. Available at: