“It was impossible to know that, during this session, the members of the Constitutional Tribunal would be removed [… and that] their replacements would be appointed. […] The fact that a parliamentary majority had been created was undisputed […;] the problem was that this majority was established to violate the Constitution and satisfy the Government’s political interests, such as avoiding the impeachment of President Gutiérrez and eliminating the Supreme Court of Justice […] in order to annul a criminal proceeding against President Abdalá Bucaram.”251 212. In addition, the Court stresses that, within a period of 14 days, not only the Constitutional Tribunal was removed, but also the Electoral Tribunal and the Supreme Court of Justice, which constitutes an abrupt and totally unacceptable course of action. All these acts signify an impairment of judicial independence. This allows the Court to conclude that, at the very least, at that time there was a climate of institutional instability in Ecuador that affected important State institutions. Moreover, the judges were prevented from using the remedy of amparo to counter the decision that Congress had taken against them (infra paras. 99, 102, 103, 105, 106 and 107). 213. Regarding the events that occurred during the session of November 25, 2004, the Court emphasizes that: a) During the debate concerning the presumed formal errors in the appointment of the judges on November 25, 2004, some members of Congress referred to presumed acts of corruption by the judges. In particular, several congressmen stated that: (i) the “judges [were] corrupt; that they ha[d] been quoting rates for their judgments”;252 (ii) “this Constitutional Tribunal contain[ed] corrupt aspects that c[ould] not be tolerated one moment more”; 253 (iii) the members of the Constitutional Tribunal would have to “respond for the supposed acts of corruption, but […] before Congress in impeachment proceedings, and not by a simple resolution”;254 (iv) “the Constitutional Tribunal sold judgments [… and] the Constitutional Tribunal had rates for its measures,”255 and (v) “even if the members of the Constitutional Tribunal are removed […] owing to the decision of this Parliament, if we want to defend the remnants of public ethics and moral, they should end up in prison”;256 b) The motion to declare the presumed illegality of the judges’ appointment was not included on the agenda previously, but was proposed during the session257 when, precisely on November 23, 2004, the President of the Republic had announced the Government’s intention of promoting the re-organization of the Constitutional Tribunal, the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, and the Supreme Court of Justice through Congress (supra para. 56). Faced by this proposal by the President, the 251 Affidavit prepared by the witness Lucero Bolaños on March 13, 2013 (merits file, tome III, folio 1369); 252 National Congress Record No. 24-323 of November 25, 2004 (file of annexes to the report, tome I, folio 136). 253 148). 254 199). National Congress Record No. 24-323 of November 25, 2004 (file of annexes to the report, tome I, folio National Congress Record No. 24-323 of November 25, 2004 (file of annexes to the report, tome I, folio 255 National Congress Record No. 24-323 of November 25, 2004 (file of annexes to the report, tome I, folios 362 and 363). 256 386). 257 349). National Congress Record No. 24-323 of November 25, 2004 (file of annexes to the report, tome I, folio National Congress Record No. 24-323 of November 25, 2004 (file of annexes to the report, tome I, folio 63