challenge by citizens.296 On October 31, 2012, the Evaluation Committee to select the judges of the Constitutional Court appointed the nine members of the Constitutional Court for the nine-year period from 2012 to 2021.297 262. The Court notes the 2008 amendment of Ecuador’s Constitution, as well as the subsequent restructuring of the Constitutional Court, which entailed important changes in matters such as the number, composition, and election of the members of the Constitutional Court. In addition, the Court underscores that, in the cases in which it has ordered the reinstatement of judges to their positions or to one with similar characteristics, these were judges who exercised their functions in lower courts of the Judiciary 298 while, in this case, the members of the Constitutional Tribunal could only be appointed to another high court of the Judiciary, which makes their reinstatement difficult or even impossible. Consequently, the Court considers that, owing to the new constitutional circumstances, the difficulties to appoint the judges in the same position or one of a similar rank, as well as the new norms to protect the tenure of officials of the judicial career, the reinstatement of the judges would not be possible. 263. Regarding the request to reinstate the judges in a position that has comparable remuneration, social benefits and rank to the one that would correspond to them, the Court observes that this is not appropriate, taking into account the reasons associated with the amendments that have been made to the Constitution (supra paras. 260 to 262). Moreover, insufficient evidence has been provided to allow the Court to determine whether an organ exists that is comparable to the Constitutional Tribunal, other than the Constitutional Court. 264. Despite the foregoing, the Court recalls its case law299 according to which, in cases in which it is not possible to reinstate judges removed from their position arbitrarily, compensation should be ordered owing to the impossibility of reinstating them in their functions as judge. Therefore, the Court establishes the sum of US$60,000.00 (sixty thousand United States dollars), as a measure of compensation for each victim. This amount must be paid within one year of notification of this Judgment. 3. Guarantees of non-repetition – amendment of domestic laws 296 Cf. Regulations for the Appointment of Judges of the Constitutional Court (file of annexes to the answering brief, tome I, folios 3821 to 3831). 297 This selection procedure was in keeping with the provisions of the Organic Law on Jurisdictional Guarantees and Constitutional Control, which in its sixth transitory provision indicates that: “[w]hen the new Legislative, Executive and Transparency and Social Control functions have been constituted, the Evaluation Committee shall be organized to appoint the judges of the Constitutional Court. The Council for Citizen Participation shall draft the norms and procedures for the public competition, as established in the Constitution and in this law.” See also, the ninth transitory provisions of the said law, which stipulates that: “[i]n the third year of the functioning of the Constitutional Court, the Plenary shall hold a draw among its members to determine who must be replaced in accordance with the rules on partial renewal established in the law; during the sixth year, the draw will be held among the members of the Court who continued in office following the first draw.” Cf. Organic Law on Jurisdictional Guarantees and Constitutional Control (file of annexes to the answering brief, tome I, folio 3605). 298 Thus, for example, in the case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela, the victim was a judge of the First Instance Court of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the Judicial Circumscription of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas when she was removed. In the case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, the victim was a first instance judge of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the Judicial Circumscription of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas. Meanwhile, in the case of Apitz v. Venezuela, the judges were members of the First Contentious Administrative Court. Cf. Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela, para. 78; Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, para. 49, and Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Contentious Administrative Court”) v. Venezuela, para. 2. 299 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Contentious Administrative Court”) v. Venezuela, para. 246, and Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela, para. 154. 77