41 109. It has also been demonstrated (supra para. 89(27)) that the independence and impartiality of the Constitutional Court, as a democratic institution guaranteeing the rule of law, were undermined by the removal of some of its justices, which “violated erga omnes the possibility of exercising the control of constitutionality and the consequent examination of the adaptation of the State’s conduct to the Constitution.”67 The above resulted in a general situation of absence of guarantees and the ineffectiveness of the courts to deal with facts such as those of the instant case, as well as the consequent lack of confidence in these institutions at the time. 110. Furthermore, the Court observes that the facts of the instant case occurred within the framework of the so-called “streamlining of the personnel of the Congress of the Republic,” which was justified by the so-called Emergency and National Reconstruction Government, inter alia, as a reorganization or restructuring of the State legislature. The Court considers that States evidently have discretionary powers to reorganize their institutions and, possibly, to remove personnel based on the needs of the public service and the administration of public interests in a democratic society; however, these powers cannot be exercised without full respect for the guarantees of due process and judicial protection, because, to the contrary, those affected could be subjected to arbitrary acts. Despite the foregoing, the Court has indicated that it will examine the dispute in this case in light of the State’s obligations arising from Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof (supra para. 107). Consequently, the Court will not examine the scope of this “streamlining process” as such, but whether, in the historical context mentioned above and according to the norms under which they were dismissed, the alleged victims could determine with legal certainty the proceeding to which they could and should resort to claim the rights they considered had been violated and whether they were guaranteed real and effective access to justice. * * * 111. Once the alleged victims had been dismissed by resolutions of the Administrative Commission (supra para. 89(13)), the parties have indicated three channels by which, at least formally, they could have contested their dismissal; namely, an administrative proceeding before Congress itself, an action under administrative law, and the action for amparo. 112. Regarding the administrative proceeding before Congress attempted by some of the alleged victims, the Court is unable to examine what happened in this regard more thoroughly, because it lacks sufficient and adequate probative elements (supra paras. 87 and 89(29)). Also, when examining the laws brought to its attention in this context, the Court found it unclear whether it was necessary to resort to this mechanism before having recourse to the courts in order to contest congressional acts. 113. In this regard, article 27 of Resolution 1239-A-CACL issued by the Administrative Commission stipulated that “it would not accept claims relating to the results of the examination” on which the permanence in Congress or the termination of the labor relationship of those who had taken the examination depended to a large extent. Nevertheless, the content of this article, which prevented objections being 67 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court , supra note 11, para. 112.