comparable to the one they would hold today if their functions had not been terminated, for the period of time that remained in their terms,” or “if, for well-founded reasons, reinstatement is not possible, the State must compensate the victims or their heirs.” 256. The representatives asked that the State “reinstate the judges […] in the Constitutional Tribunal […] in the same or a similar position to the one they held, with the same remuneration, social benefits, and rank comparable to the one they would hold today if they had not been removed arbitrarily,” and that “[i]f the State is able to prove that it is not possible to reinstate them for well-founded reasons, it must pay compensation to each of the victims or their legitimate heirs, that sh[ould] not be less […] than US$60,000.” 257. The State argued “the impossibility of reinstating [the judges] in the position they had [in the Constitutional Tribunal,] since this institution no longer exists […], because the 2008 Constitution of Ecuador eliminated it and created the Constitutional Court, which is a different institution, […] with fully jurisdictional functions, contrary to the Constitutional Tribunal, which was merely administrative in nature.” In addition, it indicated that “the Constitutional Court is now composed of tenured judges.” Regarding the compensation of US$60,000.00, the State indicated that “since there is no clear violation of human rights in this case, this claim is unnecessary” and that “should the Court […] deliver judgment against Ecuador,” it considered this sum “in excess of the amounts established by the Court.” Considerations of the Court 258. The Court determined that the dismissal of the victims was the result of a decision that impaired judicial guarantees, judicial independence, tenure, and judicial protection (supra para. 222). The Court bears in mind that all judges, whether titular or provisional, should be ensured tenure or stability in office, in order to permit reinstatement to the status of judge for those who were arbitrarily deprived of this.295 259. In the instant case, at the time of the facts, the term of the members of the Constitutional Tribunal had been established from 2003 to 2007. 260. However, the changes to the Constitution in 2008 created a new Constitutional Court. Article 432 of this Constitution stipulated that “the Constitutional Court shall be composed of nine members who shall exercise their functions in plenary sessions and in chambers pursuant to the law. They shall perform their functions for a period of nine years, without immediate re-election, and one-third of the members shall be renewed every three years.” 261. Under the Regulations for the Appointment of Judges of the Constitutional Court of May 17, 2012, the Plenary of the Council for Citizen Participation and Social Control established the norms and procedures for the evaluation and appointment of judges of the first Constitutional Court, by public competition, with the possibility of oversight and 295 Similarly, in the case of Apitz v. Venezuela, the Court established that “taking into account that all judges, whether titular or provisional, should be guaranteed tenure or stability in office in order to permit the reinstatement to the position of judge of anyone who has been arbitrarily deprived of this, the Court considers that, as a measure of reparation, the State must reinstate the victims to the Judiciary, if they so wish, in a position with the same remuneration, social benefits, and rank comparable to the one that would correspond to them today, if they had not been dismissed.” Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Contentious Administrative Court”) v. Venezuela, para. 246. 76