legal actions he considered appropriate to present his claim before an independent, impartial, and competent court. 138. However, as has been indicated during the analysis of Article 13 of this report, public officials are provided with less harmful tools to safeguard the rights to reputation and honor in accordance with the American Convention. The IACHR reiterates that the normative framework in force at the time was incompatible with the inter-American standards and the convictions, as a result of the process, were disproportionate for the purposes pursued. 139. However, it should be pointed out that the political and legal position of a President of the Republic, according to the nature of the position he occupies, is governed by the principle of separation and balance of powers, since it represents the highest incumbent of a state power. The guarantees of independence of the Judiciary in relation to the institutional aspect and in relation to the person of the judges must be specially observed and guaranteed throughout the judicial process with attention to the principles of transparency and publicity of the processes, to the person of the plaintiff, the interests at risks, and the public relevance of the matter. 140. In the present case, it was demonstrated that Correa filed the criminal action of insult "against the authority" and that he requested to apply the "maximum penalty". Although Correa appeared to litigate as a "common citizen", throughout the entire process, from the beginning to the end, he served as President of the Republic while carrying out official actions that affected the Judiciary. In this context, the filing of the action and subsequent actions by Correa, who on several occasions made a series of public statements about the case in his role as President and through the state media, created a situation of inequality between the parties and the guarantees of independence and impartiality of the judicial body were seriously affected. 141. With respect to the aforementioned, the Commission has said, "taking into account that the right of defense is a right of the person undergoing proceedings, it would not be admissible that such defense could be put at risk as a result of a chain of command or pressures from other actors or branches of the State”159. 142. In this context, the independence of the judiciary, in its institutional aspect, was affected at the time that the Executive issued, on September 5, 2011, the decree declaring the "state of exception" in the Judiciary for 60 days "in order to resolve the critical situation that it is going through and duly ensure the right to justice contemplated in the Constitution of the Republic and prevent an impending internal commotion" and declared " priority action the formulation, execution, and implementation of projects to improve the judiciary in Ecuador, through the Transformation Plan of the Judiciary"160. 143. In the context of Ecuador, the IACHR has monitored the process of restructuring the judiciary that began in 2011. As indicated in its 2013 annual report, at the end of the 18-month mandate of the body responsible for the administration of the judiciary, "according to figures offered by the Transitional Council itself, during its operation the agency decided in disciplinary proceedings, the dismissal of hundreds of officials of the Judiciary, including judges." In addition, the IACHR received information on the interference that the heads of the executive powers had exercised over the Judiciary through the control of the administration of justice, as well as in the processes of appointment of positions, and disciplinary proceedings of dismissal161. 1.2 Principle of competence 144. According to the analysis, the legal entity El Universo was subjected to a criminal trial and also sanctioned in a disproportionate manner to pay an amount of 10 million dollars in the proceeding against Emilio Palacio Urrutia and the executives of El Universo. According to the analysis made, since the law did not clearly, specifically, and expressly stated the possibility of submitting to a criminal trial a legal entity, the Commission also understands that it is a violation of the principle of competence in accordance with article 8.1 of the Convention and in relation to article 9 of the same instrument. 145. With regard to the competence of the temporary judges who heard the case, the Commission highlights the lack of clarity regarding the selection of judges. In this sense, the State did not send substantial 159 IACHR. Guarantees for the Independence of Justice Operators. OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 44. December 5, 2013. Para. 46. 160 Annex 35. Executive Decree No. 872. Annex No. 76 of the Initial Petition presented to the IACHR on October 24, 2011. 161 IACHR. Annual report 2013. Chapter IVA. Para. 26 30