judging whether the principle of judicial independence was applicable to the members of Ecuador’s TSE at the time of the facts. 56. It cautions that, pursuant to Article 209 of Ecuador’s 1998 Constitution, one of the tasks of the TSE was to “[i]ssue opinions on statements of account submitted by political parties, political movements, organizations and candidates, concerning the amounts, origin and use of resources employed in electoral campaigns.”38 Moreover, the 2000 Law on Elections empowered the TSE to settle disputes on the application of this law,39 to “[s]erve as the sole body for settling complaints brought against civil authorities on electoral matters,”40 and to adjudicate offenses “in the case of members of provincial electoral boards and other persons subject to the jurisdiction of the provincial high courts […].”41 The Law on the Administrative Jurisdiction specified that “[r]ulings delivered by electoral organizations” were not under the administrative court system.42 57. Expert witness Ruth Hidalgo stated in her declaration: “[…] [t]he Supreme Electoral Tribunal at that time held material jurisdiction and was authorized to rule on electoral accounts; it adjudicated electoral offenses as provided by the Law on Elections and the Law on Electoral Expenditures in effect in 2004, […] it handled motions of grievance and motions of review, examined statements of account and ruled on offenses by political parties.” Expert witness Oleas Rodríguez said, “the Electoral Law assigned exclusive jurisdiction to the electoral organizations, and their decisions were binding; it stated that the members of these bodies were legally mandated to perform their duties, and they could be sanctioned with suspension of political rights if they failed to do so.”43 Expert witness Diego Jadán Heredia said in the public hearing that it was the task of the TSE to announce the outcome of elections, and its announcements were final and unappealable.44 58. The Court also cautions that, under the Law on Elections, members of the TSE enjoyed “immunity during their term of office” and “[t]hey may not be prosecuted or held in custody, except by prior decision of the Supreme Court […].”45 The law also stipulated that “[n]o authority from outside the electoral organization may intervene directly or indirectly in the operation of the electoral bodies,”46 and similarly, that any authority not associated with the electoral organizations who interfered with elections 38 Cf. Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador, August 11, 1998, Article 209 (evidence file, folio 2294). Cf. Law on Elections, published in the Official Gazette No. 117 of July 11, 2000, Article 13 (evidence file, folio 2106). 39 40 Cf. Law on Elections, published in the Official Gazette No. 117 of July 11, 2000, Article 20 (evidence file, folio 2108). 41 Cf. Law on Elections, published in the Official Gazette No. 117 of July 11, 2000, Article 143 (evidence file, folio 2133). 42 Cf. Law on the Administrative Jurisdiction, Article 6 (evidence file, folio 2009). Cf. Written expert witness statement by Medardo Oleas Rodríguez, delivered by affidavit before a public attestor, pg. 3 (evidence file, folio 2756). 43 Cf. Expert witness statement by Diego Jadán Heredia, delivered at public hearing on September 8, 2022, during the 151st regular session. 44 45 Cf. Law on Elections, published in the Official Gazette No. 117 of July 11, 2000, Article 17 (evidence file, folio 2107). 46 Cf. Law on Elections, published in the Official Gazette No. 117 of July 11, 2000, Article 134 (evidence file, folio 2132). 18