B. The State 14. During the admissibility hearing that the Commission held on this case, the State’s representatives argued that during the regular session of the National Congress, some deputies stated that the procedure by which the justices were elected was not lawful because the procedure outlined in Article 275 of the Constitution was not followed. The justices were not elected in an individual capacity, from each of the slates presented. Instead, a “blanket tactic” was used. As a resulted, the congressmen suggested that new justices be appointed in accordance with the Constitution and the laws. To that end, they passed a resolution in which the appointment was declared unlawful; new justices were appointed, this time in conformity and law, using slates received by the Congress at the time. The State argues that this was how the Congress –in exercise of its authorities—resolved to correct the unconstitutional situation that had been created. According to the State, at no time was a justice removed by impeachment, as the petitioners claim. The State therefore asks that the Commission reject the petitioners’ claim that the resolution was not revoked despite the fact that the impeachment found the petitioners innocent. 15. The State argues that the petitioners did not exhaust any domestic remedy and thus failed to comply with Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention. The State recalled that the Commission had made the point that the decisive factor is not the interested party’s subjective concern as to the impartiality of a court; instead, it is that such fears may be objectively justified. The State indicates that the European Court of Human Rights has written that in principle, the impartiality of the members of a court shall be taken as a given until proven otherwise and that there are two tests to determine whether a judge is or is not impartial: the personal conviction and behaviour of a particular judge in a given case, and ascertaining whether the judge offered guarantees sufficient to exclude any legitimate doubt in this respect. In the present case, the State argues that in the abstract, and absent convincing evidence, it cannot be concluded that the future decisions of a domestic court will be biased and in violation of the rules of due process. 16. The State’s position is that the petitioners had two remedies available to them: a constitutionality challenge and the contentious-administrative avenue. In the case of the constitutionality challenge, the State argues that once the requirements established in Article 272 of the Constitution had been met, if the petitioners believed that they were arbitrarily removed in violation of the Constitution, they could have brought a constitutionality challenge in the Constitutional Court. As for the contentious-administrative remedy, the State asserts that natural or legal persons can use such remedies to challenge administrative regulations, measures or decisions of the government or of legal or semi-public entities that have taken effect and that violate the petitioner’s right or immediate interest. They can also be used to challenge administrative decisions that adversely affect private rights established or recognized by law, provided those decisions were taken as a consequence of some general provision that infringes the law that is the basis of those rights. IV. ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY A. The Commission’s competence ratione personae, ratione materiae, ratione temporis and ratione loci 17. Under Article 44 of the Convention, the petitioners have standing to lodge complaints with the IACHR. The petition names as alleged victims individuals whose Convention-protected rights the State pledged to respect and ensure. As for the State, Ecuador has been party to the American Convention since December 28, 1977, the date on which it deposited its instrument of ratification. The IACHR, therefore, is competent ratione personae to examine the petition. 18. The Inter-American Commission is competent ratione loci to take up the petition because it alleges violations of Convention-protected rights said to have occurred within the territory of a State party to the Convention. 4