9 under the 16th Transitory Provision of the constitutional amendments published in Official Register No. 120 on July 21, 1997, submitted its report to Congress. 10 37. That report set out the procedure 11 followed to select the candidates from among the people who met the requirements set in the Constitution. The Qualification Committee selected 51 of the members of the list 12 . On October 2, 1997, the National Congress appointed the alleged victims to serve as justices of the Supreme Court. They took office on October 6, 1997. 13 3. The Constitution adopted by the National Constitutional Assembly in 1998 38. Article 129 of the constitutional amendments issued on July 23, 1997, cited at xx, supra, was essentially reproduced in Article 202 of the Constitution adopted by the National Constitutional Assembly in 1998. Thus, for the appointment and tenure of justices of the Supreme Court, it provided that they would enjoy unlimited tenure and that the cooptation system would be used to fill vacancies, in the following terms: Article 202. The members of the Supreme Court of Justice shall not be subject to a limited tenure of office. Their duties shall be terminated for the reasons set down in the Constitution and in law. When a vacancy arises, the plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice shall appoint the new justice by a vote in favor of at least two thirds of its members, with due consideration to the criteria of professionalism and judicial career as provided for by law. Appointments shall be made, alternately, from professionals who have served in the judiciary, as university lecturers, or in free professional exercise, in that order. 14 39. Similarly, the principle of judicial independence was enshrined in Article 199 of the Constitution, in the following terms: Article 199. 10 Annex 3. Report of the Qualifying Committee to the National Congress, dated October 1, 1997. (Annex to the initial petition received on December 30, 2004.) 11 Pursuant to that procedure, the candidates were first asked to accept their nomination, for which purpose a public invitation was made in the press on September 18, 1997. Following that date, the Qualifying Committee received communication from several people “refusing, renouncing, or declining their candidacies.” Compliance with the formal requirements was then verified with respect to the candidates who agreed to participate. The Qualifying Committee asked the General Secretariat of the Supreme Court of Justice to provide information on judicial officers who had been punished with dismissal or removal for incorrect acts or failures in their duties. The Complaints Commission of the Supreme Court of Justice was also asked for information of any serious offenses in judicial functions contained in their case files. On September 24, 1997, the press published lists of the candidates who had declined, those nominated after the deadline, and those regarding whom comments or challenges from the public were invited. During the period for challenges to be received, the Qualifying Committee examined each candidate’s documents and made a preliminary selection. It was agreed that candidates “regarding whose inclusion on the list at least five of the seven committee members were in agreement” would be deemed to have passed the preliminary selection. The Committee then examined the challenges, complaints, and objections filed regarding the preliminary selection candidates. Almost all the challenges involved members of the public expressing their disagreement with judicial decisions they considered illegal or arbitrary. Regarding these challenges, the Qualifying Committee said that “in matters of this kind it is impossible for formulate an opinion, either because the legal value of the decision cannot be assessed without seeing the case documents, or because examining whether a decision is correct or not falls solely to the court or judge hearing the appeal or motion to annul, as applicable.” 12 Annex 3. Report of the Qualifying Committee to the National Congress, dated October 1, 1997. (Annex to the initial petition received on December 30, 2004.) 13 Annex 4. Statement of Hugo Quintana Coello, given on May 14, 2007, to the 23rd Notary of the canton of Quito. (Annex to petitioners’ submission, received on May 24, 2007.) 14 Annex 5. Extracts from the Constitution of Ecuador adopted by the National Constitutional Assembly in 1998. (Annex to the petitioners’ submission, presented at the hearing held before the IACHR on March 13, 2006.)