Constitutional Tribunal published a press communiqué on December 24, 2004, stating that “the members of the Tribunal [were] ready to respond for acts or omissions in the exercise of our functions by means of the constitutional procedure, namely impeachment; any other procedure [did] not fall with the constitutional norms and, therefore, would violate the Constitution itself” (supra para. 57); c) Even though the holding of an impeachment proceeding against the judges for their presumed responsibility was only announced on November 25, 2004; that same day, the vote was taken to terminate them; 258 d) While several motions of censure had been presented against the members of the Constitutional Tribunal, the presumed errors in the way in which they had been appointed had not been alleged previously (supra para. 178); e) Based on Ruling No. 25-160, Congress cited the “unanimous demand of the people of Ecuador to terminate the situation of institutional chaos that prevail[ed] in the public institutions” (supra para. 62), which bore no relationship to the presumed interest of the National Congress to rectify a formal error in the appointment of the judges; f) That same day, the National Congress, also citing presumed formal errors, terminated the judges of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, thus using almost the same reasons (supra para. 66), and g) With the termination of the members of the Constitutional Tribunal and the members of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, within a few days, the President’s prior announcement about restructuring the organs for the administration of justice had been fulfilled. 214. Based on these circumstances, the Court observes that the accusations made about presumed acts of corruption or the alleged politization of the judges were made in general, with no specific probative elements about the way in which this conduct had been implemented. In addition, the intention to debate the termination of the judges was not announced previously and publicly. In addition, several testimonial statements, 259 which the State has not contested, indicated that the substitution of the members of the Constitutional 258 Cf. National Congress Record, 24-323, session of November 25, 2004, folio 418. 259 Cf. In this regard, witness Lucero stated that: “[t]he 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 (SCJ) in order to annul a criminal proceeding against President Abdalá Bucarám.” Testimony of witness Lucero Bolaños on March 13, 2013 (merits file, tome III, folio 1369). Witness Torres Torres indicated that “[a]s soon as the members of the [Constitutional Tribunal] [and] the justices of the [Supreme Court of Justice] had been removed, the new judicial authorities rejected any possibility of declaring the unconstitutionality of the arbitrary acts perpetrated by Congress, [and] the proceeding against President Bucarám was annulled.” Testimony of witness Torres Torres (merits file, tome III, folio 1363). In addition, Mr. Cevallos Bueno stated that “[t]he President of the Republic made a political pact to create a new majority and the political pact consisted of two elements: the first, to avoid the impeachment of the President, and the other, to bring back a former President against whom an arrest warrant had been issued and who […] [was] in the Republic of Panama and c[ould] not return to Ecuador. This was the political pact. And, in order to make it, he had to remove a Supreme Court that had ordered the pre-trial detention, and in order for the restitution of the Supreme Court to be effective and not to be controlled, they had to remove the Constitutional Tribunal. At the time, the Constitutional Tribunal […] had the authority to control the constitutionality of the decisions of the public authorities, [so that] it was a first obstacle.” Testimony of Oswaldo Cevallos during the public hearing on March 18, 2013. See also: affidavits prepared by Simón Zabala Guzmán on March 12, 2013 (merits file, tome III, folio 1240), and Pablo Enrique Herrería Bonnet on March 17, 2013 (merits file, tome III, folio 1262). 64