4 17. The petitioners alleged that on November 25, 2004, despite the call for impeachment, the National Congress, by mere resolution No. 25-160, ruled that the full judges of the Constitutional Court had been designated illegally in 2003 and terminated them. On that same date the National Congress elected new members of the Constitutional Court, using the same shortlists that were sent in 2003, and once again designated Milton Burbano and René de la Torre, who had been elected in 2003 and also dismissed like the rest of the members of the Court on November 25, for their alleged affinity with the legislative majority. 18. In addition, they indicated that on December 1, the debate on the censure motions raised in the impeachment trials against Oswaldo Cevallos Bueno, Miguel Camba Campos, Luis Rojas Bajaña, Jaime Nogales Izurrieta, René de la Torre, Simón Zabala Guzmán, and Manuel Jaramillo Córdova was included on the Order of Business. The members removed attended that hearing and reiterated that they could not be held liable for the votes they may issue and the opinions they may formulate in the exercise of their position, according to Article 275 of the Constitution. The petitioners stated that the impeachment trial concluded without the approval of any censure motion, despite which the Congress did not overturn Resolution 25-160. 19. The petitioners argue that in the face of these circumstances, on December 2, 2004, Oswaldo Cevallos Bueno, Miguel Camba Campos, Simón Zavala, Luis Rojas, and Mauro Terán filed judicial amparo actions, which were rejected given that the judges of first instance applied a decision that emanated from the de facto Constitutional Court that illegally impeded the amparo action from going forward to call into question the resolutions issued by the National Congress, expressly the one that ordered the removal of the judges. 20. In addition, they stated that on December 5, the President of the Republic convened a special session of the National Congress for December 8 in order to resolve, among other things, the vote in the impeachment trial of the former members of the Constitutional Court. At that session, according to the petitioners, the Congress repeated the vote of the impeachment a second time, and, without observing the rules of due process or guaranteeing the appearance of the persons put on trial, censured the former judges. For the petitioners, the session convened by the President and the new vote “sought to give a public appearance of legality to Resolution 21-160 of November 25, 2004, by which they were unlawfully removed from their functions.” 21. In addition, the petitioners indicated that Oswaldo Cevallos did not participate in the resolution by which the impeachment trial was held, that Enrique Herrería and Mauro Terán were terminated despite not having been called to an impeachment trial, and that René De La Torre, supportive of the Government, was exonerated even though he had voted in the resolution by which all the other judges were impeached, which would constitute discriminatory treatment. 22. The petitioners hold that these facts constituted violations of the rights enshrined in Articles 8, 9, 23, 24, and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof. The following sections summarize the petitioners’ claims with respect to those articles. 23. As for the right to judicial guarantees enshrined in Article 8 of the Convention, the petitioners indicated that “the irremovability of judges is implicitly guaranteed in Article 8(1) of the Convention” and that “the independence of any judge presupposes that one has an adequate appointment process, with an established duration in the position, and with a guarantee against outside pressure. According to the Ecuadorian legal system, the members of the Constitutional Court are elected for a period of four years, and the only way to remove them is by impeachment. In addition, they argued that all judicial and non-judicial procedures, such as legislative ones, in which determinations are made of the liability of individuals with respect to the commission of alleged infractions should contain all the guarantees of due process, and that the application of due