proceeding was initiated, it was not concluded because the accused judge resigned his post. 82 B. Context 63. The Court shall refer to several background facts which are relevant to an understanding of the scope of the rights involved in this case. The Court emphasizes that the State did not dispute the contextual facts presented by the Commission in its Report on Merits and which were subsequently expanded by the representatives. 1. Dismissal of members of the Constitutional Tribunal and of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal 64. The State did not contest the evidence regarding the fact that on November 9, 2004 the opposition parties in the National Congress were preparing to impeach the President of the Republic, Lucio Gutiérrez, for the crime of embezzlement. 83 At that time, the political party to which the President belonged did not have a majority in Congress. In order to prevent his impeachment, the government managed to secure a parliamentary majority and made political deals with the Ecuadorian Roldosist Party (Partido Roldosista EcuadorianoPRE) 84, among others, to dismiss the judges and appoint a “new” Court. 85 The leader of the 82 Cf. Record and Summary Supreme Court of Justice regular session of July 23, 2003 (File of attachments to the brief of pleadings and motions, volume I, page 2332). 83 Cf. Affidavit rendered by expert witness Pásara (Merits file, volume III, page 1259); Affidavit rendered by Mr. Alban Gómez (File of attachments to the brief of pleadings and motions, volume I, page 2357); Affidavit rendered by Mr. Quintana Coello on September 29, 2011 (File of attachments to pleadings and motions, volume I, page 2634); Affidavit rendered by Mr. Riofrío Corral on October 11, 2011 (File of attachments to brief of pleadings and motions, volume I, page 2655); Affidavit rendered by Mr. Serrano Puig on October 24, 2011 (File of attachments to the brief of pleadings and motions, volume I, page 2686); Affidavit rendered by Mr. Zambrano Palacios on August 19, 2011 (File of attachments to the brief of pleadings and motions, volume I, page 2748); Affidavit rendered by Mr. Andrade Ubidia on November 16, 2011 (File of attachments to brief of pleadings and motions, volume I, page 2764), and Affidavit rendered by Mr. Serrano Puig on January 31, 2013. (Merits file, volume III, page 1302). 84 Regarding the formation of the parliamentary majority and the political deals, expert witness Ruiz Acosta stated that: “the situation at the end of 2004 confronted former President Lucio Gutiérrez, on the one hand, and former President Abdalá Bucaram, and his party, the PRE, on the other. From mid-2003, […] Gutiérrez established a political alliance with the right-wing PSC, which was then the leading force in Congress and had links with numerous judges of the [Supreme Court of Justice] at that time. A year later, during the local authority elections of 2004, the alliance between Gutiérrez and the PSC began to fall apart. At the same time, Gutiérrez established contacts with the self-exiled Bucaram, leader of the PRE, the third political force in Congress and the political enemy of Febres Cordero and the PSC.” Affidavit rendered by expert witness Ruiz Acosta on January 29, 2013 (Merits file, volume III, page 1219). Likewise, the witness Ayala Mora declared that “the government of Lucio Gutiérrez had forged a new majority in the Congress orchestrated by the PRE and began to talk about the reorganization of the Supreme Court.” Statement by witness Ayala Mora (Merits file, volume III, page 1286). Press articles of the daily “El Comercio” entitled “Gutiérrez mixed up in his statement” of December 11, 2004 (File of attachments to the report, volume III, page 664), “Bucaram with more influence on Gutiérrez” of December 25, 2004 (File of attachments to the report, volume II, page 675), “Bucaram’s power is transmitted by telephone” of December 30, 2004 (File of attachments to the report, volume II, page 676), “Faits accomplis” of January 7, 2005 (File of attachments to the report, volume III, page 685), “The United States is concerned about juridical instability and the Court” of January 8, 2005 (File of attachments to the report, volume III, page 686), “Concentration of powers” (File of attachments to the report, volume III, page 687), and press article in the newspaper “Hoy” entitled “Commentary of Los Angeles Times” of January 7, 2005 (File of attachments to the report, volume III, page 714). 85 In this regard, expert witness Ruiz Acosta stated that “in November 2004 former presidents León Febres Cordero, leader of the PSC and Rodrigo Borja leader of the Democratic Left party, along with some deputies of Pachakutik tried to impeach Gutiérrez, but failed. Weeks later, and with the support of the PRE and the PRIAN, President Gutiérrez decided to seek, via Congress, the replacement of the [Supreme Court of Justice] by a new Court (the new Court included judges close to the PRE and Bucaram”. Affidavit rendered by expert witness Ruiz Acosta on January 29, 2013 (Merits file, volume III, pages 1209 and 1219). Cf. Affidavit rendered by Mr. Serrano Puig on January 31, 2013 (Merits file, volume III, pages 1305 and 1306). Press report in “El Comercio” newspaper 22