51. The nine members and their alternates were elected by the National Congress. This election was held so that seven of the nine members of the Constitutional Tribunal were elected from slates proposed by different State authorities and the other two were appointed directly by Congress.46 The appointments corresponding to Congress, which did not result from a slate, were made on January 9, 2003, and corresponded to Enrique Herrería Bonnet and Oswaldo Cevallos Bueno. Manuel Jaramillo Córdova was appointed as the alternate for Judge Cevallos.47 52. Subsequently, on March 19, 2003, based on the different slates proposed, Congress appointed Milton Burbano and Simón Zabala Guzmán (from the slate presented by the President of the Republic), René de la Torre and Miguel Camba Campos (from the slate presented by the Supreme Court), Jaime Nogales (from the slate presented by the mayors and provincial prefects), Mauro Terán Cevallos (from the slate presented by the labor confederations and indigenous organizations) and Luis Rojas Bajaña (from the slate presented by the manufacturing chambers) as the titular judges of the Constitutional Tribunal.48 53. With the exception of the appointment of judges Herrería and Cevallos, the members were chosen by a “single list” (en plancha) election; in other words, without voting on each proposed slate, but rather by the approval of a single list. 49 The use of this method gave rise to some discussion during the election. During the regular session of March 19, 2003, some members of Congress maintained that the vote should have been held “name by name on each slate”; others considered that the initial selection and proposal made by one of the members of Congress should be “voted by single list” without discussing the persons 2. To hear and decide on the unconstitutionality of the administrative acts of all public authorities. The declaration of unconstitutionality shall result in the annulment of the act, without prejudice to the administrative organ adopting the necessary measures to preserve respect for the constitutional norms. 3. To examine decisions that deny habeas corpus, habeas corpus data, and amparo, and cases of appeal established in the action for amparo. 4. To rule on objections of unconstitutionality by the President of the Republic, in the law drafting process. 5. To rule on conformity with the Constitution, and international treaties and conventions prior to their approval by the National Congress. 6. To decide disputes concerning competence or attributes assigned by the Constitution. 7. To exercise the other attributes conferred on it by the Constitution and the laws. The decisions of the Judiciary shall not be susceptible to control by the Constitutional Tribunal. 46 Cf. Article 275 of the Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador of August 11, 1998 (file of annexes to the answering brief, tome I, folio 3707). 47 folio 4). Cf. National Congress Resolution No. R-24-016 of January 9 2003 (file of annexes to the report, tome I, 48 Cf. National Congress Resolution No. R-24-054 of March 19, 2003 (file of annexes to the report, tome I, folios 6 and 7). 49 According to the representatives, the “single list” (por plancha) election is “a common exception in the Ecuadorian political sphere and consists in the practice of voting for a whole list instead of selecting candidates from several lists for election to office. In multi-person elections in Ecuador, it is possible to choose candidates from several lists (party or political movement) to occupy collegiate bodies. For example, if five members of the provincial Assembly must be elected in a province, each list must register five candidates and, if there are two lists, the elector may select four candidates from one list and one from the other; three candidates from one and two from the other; or vote ‘by single list’; in other words elect the five candidates from the same list. This popular expression was used in the National Congress in 2003 to indicate that the judges were elected in a single act instead of being chosen one by one.” Final written arguments of the representatives of the presumed victims (merits file, tome IV, folios 1791 and 1792). 18