75. The summons did not specify the matters to be discussed in relation to the Supreme Court justices and only made general reference to the fact that that the purpose was to “discuss and decide” on “the legal-constitutional status of the judiciary.” 112 76. On December 8, 2004 the special session of the National Congress opened with 53 legislators. 113 The Congress declared itself to be in permanent regular session. 114 The members of Congress ruled on the first point of the agenda and voted in favor of the motions of censure against some members of the Constitutional Tribunal. 115 Days earlier, several motions of censure had been voted on based on the same facts, but had not led to the dismissal of some members of the Tribunal because a parliamentary majority had not been reached. 116 In this new vote, sufficient votes were obtained to approve the motion of censure against those members. 117 77. Next, Congress discussed the second point of the agenda, “Analysis of the resolution regarding the legal-constitutional status of the judiciary.” 118 On this point some relevant aspects were considered, namely: i) the constitutionality of the convocation; ii) judicial independence; iii) the flaws of the Supreme Court justices and the need to remove them; iv) the scope of Transitory Provision 25 of the 1998 Constitution regarding the supposed limits of the judges’ terms in office (January 2003); v) the vote to dismiss the judges, and vi) the constitutional amendment to restore Congress’s jurisdiction to impeach members of the Supreme Court of Justice. 119 78. The resolution approving the judges’ dismissal was justified on the grounds of Transitory Provision 25, which established that: Twenty-five – Officials and members of agencies appointed by the National Congress and the Comptroller General of the State for a four-year period as of August 10, 1998, under the provisions of this Constitution, shall remain in those positions until January 2003. 120 79. During the aforementioned special session two different positions emerged regarding the application of Transitory Provision 25. Several congressmen argued that it implied that the term for which the judges had been appointed had expired, and therefore they should be removed from office. 121 Other lawmakers explained the reasons why they considered that the transitory provision was not applicable to the Supreme Court justices. 122 112 Cf. Record 24-001 of December 8, 2004 (File of attachments to the report, volume II, page 234). 113 Cf. Record 24-001 of December 8, 2004 (File of attachments to the report, volume II, page 234). 114 Cf. Record 24-001 of December 8, 2004 (File of attachments to the report, volume II, pages 231 and 237). 115 Cf. Record 24-001 of December 8, 2004 (File of attachments to the report, volume II, pages 249 to 338). 116 Cf. Record 24-001 of December 8, 2004 (File of attachments to the report, volume II, page 250). 117 Cf. Record 24-001 of December 8, 2004 (File of attachments to the report, volume II, pages 300 and 309). 118 Cf. Record 24-001 of December 8, 2004 (File of attachments to the report, volume II, page 338). 119 Cf. Record 24-001 of December 8, 2004 (File of attachments to the report, volume II, pages 338 to 484). 120 Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador of August 11, 1998 (File of attachments to the answer brief, volume I, page 3350). 121 For example, Congressman Valle Lozano stated that this provision implied that “the terms of the Supreme Court justices appointed in 1997 expired on January 31, 2003 and, therefore, their duties [had been] extended”, for which reason he argued that “it [was] vital that [they] proceed to remove the judges of the Supreme Court [that] night.” Likewise, Congressman Villacís Maldonado stated that “Provision 25 of the Constitution […] state[d] clearly, [that] the […] judges of the Court should be at home, as of January 2003.” Record 24-001 of December 8, 2004 (File of attachments to the report, volume II, pages 380 and 385). 122 For example, regarding the scope of the transitory provision, Congressman Sandoval Baquerizo stated that “once again, they [sought] to issue another invalid resolution, applying a transitory provision of the Constitution 27