judges, which was prohibited by domestic law (supra para. 204), they violated the “ne bis in idem” principle (supra para. 186); also, the judges did not have the opportunity to be heard and to defend themselves (supra para. 187). As indicated previously (supra para. 55), the resolution deciding the termination of the judges was the result of a political alliance put together to create a Constitutional Tribunal that was aligned with the political majority that existed at that time and to prevent criminal proceedings against the President in power and a former President. It is worth underscoring that, the same day that the termination of the judges was declared, the judges who would replace them were appointed. Therefore, the apparent legality and justification of these decisions concealed the intention of a parliamentary majority to exercise greater control over the Constitutional Tribunal and to facilitate the termination of the justices of the Supreme Court. The Court has verified that the resolutions of Congress were not adopted based on the exclusive assessment of specific factual information and in order to ensure proper compliance with the laws in force, but sought a very different end related to an abuse of power aimed at obtaining control of the Judiciary by different procedures: in this case, the termination and the impeachment proceedings. This resulted in a destabilization of both the Judiciary and the country in general (supra para. 109) and intensified the political crisis, with the negative effects that this entailed for the protection of the rights of the population. Consequently, the Court emphasizes that these elements allow it to affirm that a collective and arbitrary termination of judges is unacceptable, owing to the negative impact that this has on the institutional aspect of judicial independence. 220. The Court also recalls that impartiality calls for the judicial authority that intervenes in a specific dispute to approach the facts of the case without any subjective prejudices and, also, offering sufficient guarantees of an objective nature that allow the elimination of any doubt that the defendant or the community may have.266 Based on the aspects mentioned in the preceding paragraph, this Court concludes that the National Congress did not ensure the judges who were dismissed the guarantee of impartiality required by Article 8(1) of the American Convention. 221. In addition, the Court underscores that Article 3 of the Inter-American Democratic Charter stipulates that “[e]ssential elements of representative democracy include, inter alia, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, access to and the exercise of power in accordance with the rule of law, […] and the separation of powers and independence of the branches of government.” The Court concludes that the dismissal of all the members of the Constitutional Tribunal entailed a destabilization of the democratic order that existed at that time in Ecuador, because the attack on the three high courts of Ecuador at that time resulted in a rupture of the separation and independence of the branches of government. This Court stresses that the separation of powers is closely related not only to the consolidation of the democratic system, but also seeks to preserve the human rights and freedoms of the people. 3.4. Conclusion of the Court on judicial guarantees and political rights 222. Consequently, the Court declares the violation of Article 8(1), and the pertinent parts of Article 8(2) and 8(4), in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention, owing to the arbitrary termination and the impeachment proceedings that occurred, facts that gave rise to the violation of judicial guarantees to the detriment of the eight victims in this case. Furthermore, the Court declares the violation of Article 8(1), in relation to Article 23(1)(c) and Article 1(1) of the American Convention, owing to the arbitrary effects on tenure in the 266 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Contentious Administrative Court”) v. Venezuela, para. 55. 67