President of the Tribunal, in addition to all his obligations as a judge, had to take on the administrative burden of managing the Tribunal, the President’s substitute could act when necessary as a member of the chamber; in other words, in the jurisdictional tasks of the President in the chamber to which the latter belonged.” They considered that Mr. Jaramillo Córdova “was exercising the functions of a member of the Second Chamber indefinitely, at the explicit request of the President of the Tribunal,” and that the latter, “since he had been appointed President of the organ, was empowered to delegate his jurisdictional functions permanently to his substitute so as to be able to devote himself to the tasks of administration and representation.” Thus, they argued that, although the “alternate members received per diems, in other words payments for days worked replacing the titular members […] [Mr.] Jaramillo’s situation [was] different to the other members because [… h]e exercised the attributes of titular member permanently, so that his remuneration was comparable to the complete remuneration of a titular member.” They concluded that Judge Jaramillo Córdova “was called on to replace the President on a permanent basis […] as of December 1, 2003, so that there was no need to notify him each time he was required, which [… was almost all the time during which [judge] Cevallos was President and the time that remained to him in office.” In the observations on the State’s final arguments, the representatives reiterated that the member Jaramillo Córdova “should [be treated] in the same way as the other members.” The representatives also argued that “[t]he interventions of [Mr.] Jaramillo as an alternate member of the Constitutional Tribunal, were not isolated and sporadic, as it is sought to make it appear,” so that “although, the number of hours occupied in the examination and analysis of the cases that were submitted to his consideration were often not recognized, the judgments that [Mr.] Jaramillo signed as a judge reveal the amount of work he had within the Court”. 280. The State indicated that if it “was sentenced, it would recognize the recommendations made by the […] Commission in its Report No. 99/11,” and assured that it would pay the victims “[t]he sums they failed to receive […] from December 2004 to March 24, 2007,” but “without the addition of ‘interest.’” In its final written arguments, it “consider[ed] it appropriate that the pecuniary reparation establish the amounts corresponding to the salaries, pensions, and employment and/or social benefits that were not received from the time they were removed, that is December 2004, until March 24, 2007, the date on which the period for which they were elected terminated, without the addition of interest.” 281. Regarding Mr. Jaramillo Córdova, the State indicated the need for his situation to be “analyzed in a different and specific way.” In this regard, it indicated that “the assistant judges […] were only called in the absence of the titular, or merely to ensure a prompt processing of the cases, and to that end, the Tribunal could order that the chamber be composed of assistant judges, which constituted a temporary appointment.” It indicated that the only way in which the assistant judges could be appointed permanently, was if the “titular member was absent permanently”; thus, the assistant judge would assume the functions of the titular member for the remainder of the term for which the titular member had been appointed. The State argued that Mr. Jaramillo Córdova acted in replacement of Oswaldo Cevallos for 31 days in 2003, and for 98 days in 2004. In the observations on the final written arguments, the State reiterated that Mr. Jaramillo “was not a titular member of the former Constitutional Tribunal,” and “assumed functions as a replacement, without having been granted titular status at any time, because, for this to have occurred, it would have been necessary to verify the permanent absence of the titular member, which never happened, and the representatives have not been able to contest this fact.” Hence, the State argued that since his was not “a position with any relationship of dependence with the State […], because [Mr. Jaramillo] only assumed functions in the absence of the titular member, […] he does not have the right to compensation or reparation.” 81