189. In this regard, on December 2, 2004 the recently appointed Constitutional Tribunal issued a ruling in response to a request by the President of the Republic, in which it ruled that “to suspend the effects of a parliamentary resolution, including 25-160, adopted by the […] National Congress, of November 25, 2004, for the alleged violation of the Constitution, in substance or in form, the only appropriate action is the action of unconstitutionality which should be brought before the Constitutional Tribunal” (supra para. 68). This implied that if judges were to receive an amparo remedy against the decision requiring the dismissal of members of the Constitutional Tribunal or similar legislative acts, they should “reject it outright and rule it inadmissible, since to do otherwise would be to admit proceedings against express law, which would lead to the corresponding judicial actions” (supra para. 68). 190. Indeed, the members of the Constitutional Tribunal filed five amparo remedies challenging the legality of the decision to dismiss them and, in all five cases, the amparos were rejected outright (supra paras. 70 to 73). The reason offered by the appeal judges was the decision taken by the new Constitutional Tribunal (supra paras. 70 to 73). In this regard, the Court points out that the decision of the new Constitutional Tribunal preceded the decision to dismiss the Supreme Court justices and that the filing and denial of the amparo remedies occurred days after the dismissal. Although the Constitutional Tribunal’s ruling was issued prior to the dismissal of the victims in this case and in relation to the dismissal of members of the Constitutional Tribunal, the fact is that, finally, the new Constitutional Tribunal limited the admissibility of amparo remedies to challenge parliamentary resolutions in general. 191. Furthermore, the Court stresses that the only remedy used by the Supreme Court justices was a complaint filed before the Court of Honor of the Pichincha Bar Association against the lawyers who accepted appointments to the new Supreme Court (supra para. 90). However, said Court of Honor, according to the representatives, is not a judicial body and is governed by civil law (supra para. 90). 192. In view of the foregoing, the alleged victims had at their disposal, by express mandate of the new Constitutional Court, the action of unconstitutionality. In relation to this action, it should be emphasized that, according to the Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador in force at that time, filing such an action required either that it be supported by the signatures of 1,000 people in “enjoyment of their political rights,” 228 or that it receive support through a favorable report of the Ombudsman. 229 It should also be noted that the purpose of said action was to consider whether a provision or an administrative act complied with the Constitution, 230 in form and in substance, but did not offer the possibility 228 Article 277.5 of the Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador of August 11, 1998 (File of attachments to the answer brief, volume I, page 3346). 229 Cf. Article 277 of the 1998 Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador – actions of unconstitutionality may be brought by: 1. the President of the Republic, in the cases specified in subparagraph 1 of Art. 276. 2. The National Congress, with the prior decision by a majority of its members, in the cases specified in subparagraphs 1 and 2 of the same Article. 3. The Supreme Court of Justice, with the prior decision of the Full Court, in the cases specified in subparagraphs 1 and 2 of the same Article. 4. Provincial councils or municipal councils, in the cases specified in subparagraph 2 of the same Article. 5. One thousand citizens in the enjoyment of their political rights, or any person with prior approval of the Ombudsman on its admissibility, in the cases mentioned in subparagraphs 1 and 2 of the same Article. Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador of August 11, 1998 (File of attachments to the answer brief, volume I, page 3346). 230 Cf. Article 276 of the 1998 Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador - The Constitutional Court shall have the authority to: 1. Examine and rule on actions of unconstitutionality, in substance or in form, brought with respect to organic and ordinary laws, decree-laws, decrees, ordinances; statutes, regulations and resolutions, issued by State institutions, and to suspend their effects totally or partially. 2. Examine and rule on the unconstitutionality of the administrative actions of any public authority. A declaration of unconstitutionality implies the annulment of the act, 56