8 elected individually from each of the shortlists presented, but rather the “tactic of the straight-party vote” (“la táctica de la plancha”) was used. Accordingly, the Congress adopted the resolution in which it declared the designation of the members of the Constitutional Court illegal and conducted a new designation in keeping with the Constitution and the statute, from the shortlists that the Congress already had. The State indicated that in this way the Congress – in the exercise of its powers – resolved to amend the unconstitutional act that had occurred. In this respect, the State argued that “the judges arrogated to themselves functions that did not correspond to them, for in Ecuador the only organ authorized to interpret the Constitution is the legislative branch, which is what motivated their termination.” 32. In addition, the State indicated that even though the most correct thing would have been for the appointments to have been declared invalid or non-existent, this would not have been advisable for it would have provoked a major degree of institutional legal crisis. The State held that had that been done, the resolutions issued by the Court during the period when the judges performed functions illegally would have been declared null and without any legal effect whatsoever, with the consequent detriment to the citizenry and institutional structure of the country. 33. As regards due process, the State considered that one cannot apply Articles 8, 9, and 25 of the Convention, for those articles only operate vis-à-vis judicial proceedings, whereas this was a mere termination case. 34. In addition, in relation to the guarantees of independence and impartiality, the State argued that they don’t apply either, insofar as the action of Congress did not take place in the context of its oversight function, but rather its corrective function, so as to answer to “a unanimous call from the Ecuadorian people to end the situation of institutional chaos that prevail[ed] in the public organs.” Similarly, the State alleged that the impartiality of a judge is to be presumed, and the contrary must be duly proven and cannot be based solely on the subjective fear of the victims. 35. As regards the impeachment proceeding, the State argued that on May 9, May 12 and May 15, 2003, some legislators publicly accused the members of the Constitutional Court of not having abided by certain constitutional and statutory provisions. The State indicated that in all these impeachment proceedings the accused were able to present their arguments in their defense, the case was opened up for evidence for five days (in keeping with the provisions of the Organic Law on the Legislative Function) so that the public servants accused could exercise their right to defense before the Committee on Inspection and Political Control, orally and in writing, with the same right, whether the moving party is it or the accusing legislators, which is why the accused had all due guarantees available to them, and they exercised their right to defense. The State also held that “among so many steps that have been taken” the members of the Constitutional Court were called to appear for impeachment proceedings on December 1, 2004. Finally, the State affirmed that the Congress acted as the legitimate interpreter of the Constitution, on bringing impeachment proceedings against the judges, and in this regard the IACHR cannot review the content of domestic decisions. 36. As regards the right to judicial protection enshrined in Article 25 of the Convention, the State alleged that the petitioners had two remedies available to them: an unconstitutionality suit (acción de inconstitucionalidad) and the contentious-administrative remedy. As regards the first of these remedies, the State argued that once the requirements established in Articles 277 of the Constitution were complied with, if the petitioners considered that they were removed unconstitutionally and arbitrarily, they would have brought an unconstitutionality suit before the Constitutional Court. As regards the contentious-administrative remedy, the State affirmed that it can be filed by natural or juridical persons against administrative regulations, acts, and resolutions of the public administration or of juridical or semi-public persons become final and violate a direct right