1.- To declare that the titular members of the Constitutional Tribunal and their alternates were appointed in an illegal manner and to proceed to appoint them pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic and the law, from the names provided on the slates duly received by the National Congress. To designate the two titular members of the Constitutional Tribunal and their alternates that the National Congress must appoint directly. Those appointed must be sworn in before the Speaker and/or either of the Deputy Speakers of the National Congress and shall remain in office until they are legally replaced in January 2007. 2. To declare dismissal of the regular and alternate members of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal because they were appointed without consideration for the provisions of Article 209 of the Constitution of Ecuador, regarding the means of appointment, and to proceed to appoint members pursuant to this constitutional text, based on the outcome of the October 20, 2002, elections. 3. This resolution shall enter into force immediately, without prejudice to its publication in the official gazette [...].31 42. On November 26, 2004, the Congress appointed new regular and alternate members to the Supreme Electoral Tribunal. The Congress also issued Resolutions R25-161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168 and 169, appointing regular and alternate members to the Constitutional Court.32 Finally, the Congress adopted Resolution R-25181, formally dismissing all the justices from the Supreme Court, including pro tem judges, and appointing new justices.33 E. Remedies available to challenge Congressional Resolution 25-160 43. The Supreme Court issued Ruling 01-027 on June 27, 2001, holding that it could not admit the motions for constitutional relief and should deny them outright when addressing, inter alia, “[l]egislative acts issued by a public authority, such as organic and ordinary laws, decree-laws, executive orders, ordinances, statutes, regulations and decisions that are binding (erga omnes), because, in order to suspend their effects owing to violation of the Constitution, in substance or in form, the action on unconstitutionality is the appropriate mechanism, and this must be filed before the Constitutional Court.34 44. The Constitutional Court, made up of the regular members appointed after the Congress adopted Resolution 25-160, adopted a ruling on December 2, 2004, in response to a request from the President “to prevent trial judges from admitting constitutional motions against Congressional Resolution 25-160, adopted by the […] National Congress on November 25, 2004.” The ruling held that: […] the only admissible action to suspend the effects of a congressional resolution, including No. 25-160 adopted by the National Congress on November 25, 2004, for the alleged violation of the Constitution, in substance or in form, is a motion of unconstitutionality that must be filed before the Constitutional Court […], and if any such constitutional remedy against this resolution should be filed in the country’s lower courts, it must be rejected outright by the judges and not admitted, because otherwise they would be hearing a case contrary to an Cf. Resolution R-25-160 of the National Congress, November 25, 2004, published in the Official Gazette No. 378 (evidence file, folios 1,795 and 1,796). 31 32 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador, supra, paras. 63 and 64. 33 Cf. Case of the Supreme Court of Justice (Quintana Coello et al.) v. Ecuador, supra, paras. 83 to 86. 34 Cf. Ruling of the Supreme Court delivered on July 27, 2001 (evidence file, folio 1804). 14