27 Convention; and iii) Analysis whether the State incurred in a violation of the rights established in Article 8 of the Convention. 1. Analysis whether the rights enshrined in Articles 8 and 9 of the Convention are applicable to the alleged victims 105. The Commission believes it must first of all address the Ecuadorian State’s argument that the victims were not entitled to the guarantees of freedom from ex post facto laws and due process, in that their functions were terminated but they were not removed or dismissed from their positions under a disciplinary sanction. 106. First of all, because of the absence of clear regulations governing the grounds for terminating the functions of a Supreme Court justice and the procedure to the followed in such a case, it is difficult to establish the nature of the resolution adopted by Congress on December 8, 2004. Resolutions of that kind, issued in the absence of a precise legal framework, foster doubts about the goals they pursue, and it is reasonable to consider the possibility that a kind of sanction was being imposed on officers of the judiciary in reprisal for the way they exercised their judicial functions. 107. That is consistent with the transcript of the congressional debate of December 8, 2004, which makes repeated reference to alleged problems with the Supreme Court of Justice composed of the alleged victims, with harsh criticism of the way in which they had discharged their duties. Thus, during the debate, it was claimed on multiple occasions that the justices were “corrupt,” that they were “politicized,” that they were guilty of “omissions” in the exercise of their functions, that they obeyed “political interests,” and, in general, that the Supreme Court of Justice had been “sequestered” by “political parties.” 94 Those remarks were reproduced in numerous press reports that published statements on the alleged problems of corruption, politicization, and poor operations within the Supreme Court of Justice. 95 Moreover, at the hearing on the merits held during the IACHR’s 131st period of sessions, the State said that “belonging to political parties” was they reason they were dismissed, as was reported by the media. 96 In consideration whereof, the Commission believes it is reasonable to infer that the actions of the National Congress were punitive in nature. 108. In second place, the Commission again states that under the international standards governing judicial independence, judges may only be removed from office when their mandates expire, when the terms of their appointment no longer apply, or when they commit disciplinary infractions. Thus, international law and state obligations regarding judicial independence require States to ensure the guarantees of due process in all proceedings that could lead to a judge’s dismissal. Those standards are set by international law and are intended to protect the functioning of the judiciary. They therefore apply regardless of the name given to the domestic proceedings whereby judges are relieved of duties, be it termination, dismissal, or removal. The crux of the matter is that the free removal of judges is prohibited, and, consequently, they are entitled to the 94 Annex 15. Transcription of the recording of the regular permanent morning session of the National Congress of December 8, 2004. Deed 24-001-IV. (Annex to petitioners’ submission, received on May 24, 2007.) 95 Annex 22. IACHR, Public hearing held on March 10, 2008, at the 131st regular session, Case 12.600, Hugo Quintana Coello and others. Audio available at: http://www.cidh.oas.org/prensa/publichearings/advanced.aspx?Lang=ES. Annex. Press stories submitted as an annex to the initial petition received on December 30, 2004. 96 Annex 22. IACHR, Public hearing held on March 10, 2008, at the 131st regular session, Case 12.600, Hugo Quintana Coello and others. Audio available at: http://www.cidh.oas.org/prensa/publichearings/advanced.aspx?Lang=ES. Annex 23. Press notes submitted as an annex to the initial petition received on December 30, 2004.