18 challenges and issuing legal opinions in relation to the adoption of international agreements. Given the importance of the Constitutional Court, the Special Rapporteur hopes that the country will rectify the lack of this institution in a manner that adheres strictly to the parameters and requirements established in the Constitution and the Law on the Organization of the Judiciary, in a context of complete transparency. 53 V. ANALYSIS OF LAW A. Preliminary matters 69. Before embarking on its analysis of the parties’ claims under the provisions of the American Convention, the Commission reiterates that in Admissibility Report 5/07 of February 27, 2007, dealing with this case, it concluded that the facts set out did not tend to establish a possible violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 23 and 24 of the American Convention. Although at the merits stage both parties continued to submit claims regarding those rights, the Commission finds no reason to deviate from its admissibility ruling and, consequently, the analysis of the merits will address the rights enshrined in Articles 8, 9, and 25 of the American Convention, in light of the obligations set out in Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof. 70. The Commission observes that one of the disputes this case raises is whether the termination of the judges of the Constitutional Court by means of a resolution of the National Congress on November 25, 2004, was in keeping with the provisions of the American Convention. Mindful of the judicial nature of the position mentioned, the Commission is of the view that it is necessary to make some preliminary considerations on the principle of judicial independence, for that principle informs all the subsequent analysis on the scope of the guarantees to which the alleged victims were entitled. In addition, the Commission notes that the other fundamental issue of the case is the compatibility of the impeachment proceedings against the judges of the Constitutional Court and the American Convention. The Commission will then determine whether the international responsibility of the State of Ecuador was triggered with respect to the rights established in Articles 8, 9, and 25 of the American Convention. B. The principle of judicial independence and its effects on the analysis of the case 71. This principle is set out in Article 8.1 of the American Convention and represents one of the basic pillars of a democratic system. On this point, the Inter-American Court has stated that one of the principal purposes of the separation of public powers is to guarantee the independence of judges. 54 Although the principle of judicial independence is regulated by the American Convention as a right enjoyed by persons facing prosecution or appearing before the courts to resolve their disputes, the duty of respecting and ensuring that right has implications that are directly related to the procedures whereby judges are appointed and removed – issues regarding which consolidated international standards exist, as will be indicated below 72. In this regard, the Inter-American Court has ruled that: Judges, unlike other public officials, have reinforced guarantees due to the necessary independence of the Judicial Power, which the Court has understood as “essential for the 53 Annex 25. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Leandro Despouy. A/60/321. Civil and political rights, including the questions of independence of the judiciary, administration of justice, impunity. August 31, 2005 (Annex to the petitioners’ brief submitted during the hearing held before the IACHR on March 13, 2006). 54 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Constitutional Tribunal v. Peru, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of January 31, 2001, Series C No. 71, para. 73; and Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of August 5, 2008, Series C No. 182, para. 55. IACHR, Report No. 28/94 Case 10,026, Panama, September 30, 1994.