PAGE

INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

CasE of the Constitutional TRIBUNAL (CAMBA CAMPOS ET AL.) v. ECUADOR

JUDGMENT OF AUGUST 28, 2013

(Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs)

In the case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.),

the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter the Inter-American Court or the Court), composed of the following judges:

Diego Garca-Sayn, President

Manuel E. Ventura Robles, Vice President

Alberto Prez Prez, Judge

Eduardo Vio Grossi, Judge

Roberto F. Caldas, Judge

Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto, Judge, and

Eduardo Ferrer Mac-Gregor Poisot, Judge;

also present,

Pablo Saavedra Alessandri, Secretary, and

Emilia Segares Rodrguez, Deputy Secretary,

pursuant to Articles 62(3) and 63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter also the American Convention or the Convention) and Articles 31, 32, 42, 65 and 67 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court (hereinafter the Rules of Procedure), delivers this Judgment, structured as follows:

Table of contents

4I INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE AND PURPOSE OF THE DISPUTE

5II PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT

6III COMPETENCE

6IV PARTIAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY BY THE STATE

6A. Partial acknowledgement of responsibility by the State and observations of the Commission and the representatives

8B. Considerations of the Court

9V PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS

11VI EVIDENCE

11A.Documentary, testimonial, and expert evidence

13B.Admission of the evidence

15VII PROVEN FACTS

15A.Context

151. The referendum called on April 7, 1997, and the amendments to the Constitution enacted on July 23, 1997

162. The Constitution adopted by the National Constituent Assembly in 1998..

173. The appointment of the members of the Constitutional Tribunal in 2003

19B.The termination of the members of the Constitutional Tribunal owing to the presumed illegality of the way they were appointed during the session of November 25, 2003

23C.Facts related to the impeachment of some members of the Constitutional Tribunal

231. Processing of the impeachments under the laws in force at the time of the facts

252. Rulings of the Constitutional Tribunal No. 0004-2003-TC of April 29, 2003, and No. 025-2003-TC of February 17, 2004,

263. The motions of censure against the members of the Constitutional Tribunal

284. The vote on the motions of censure in the impeachment proceeding of December 1, 2004.

305. The vote on the motions of censure during the session of December 8, 2004

33D.The Constitutional Tribunals decision on the inadmissibility of actions for amparo against decisions of Congress

34E.Refusal to admit the remedies of amparo filed by several members of the Constitutional Tribunal who were terminated

36F.Events following the dismissals from the high courts of Ecuador

39VIIi JUDICIAL GUARANTEES, THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGALITY, POLITICAL RIGHTS, DOMESTIC LEGAL EFFECTS, EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW, AND JUDICIAL PROTECTION

40A.Arguments of the Commission and of the parties

401. Arguments on judicial independence, competence, and political rights

412. Arguments on the nature of the termination decision

423. Arguments on the scope of the judicial guarantees established in Article 8 of the American Convention

424. Arguments on the right to a hearing and the right of defense

435. Arguments on the obligation to provide the reasoning

436. Arguments on impartiality

447. Arguments on the right to appeal the judgment

448. Arguments on the principle of legality

459. Arguments on the right not to be tried twice for the same facts

4510. Arguments on Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention

4611. Arguments on judicial protection

4712. Arguments on equality

48B.Considerations of the Court

1. The Inter-American Courts case law on judicial guarantees in impeachment proceedings

48

502. The violation of judicial guarantees in relation to the termination of the judges and the impeachment proceedings against them

512.1. Legal grounds and competence to declare the termination

532.2. Possibility of being heard and exercising the right of defense, and the ne bis in idem principle..

542.2.1. Rights to a hearing and of defense during the terminaton on November 25, 2004

542.2.2. Ne bis in idem, right to a hearing and right of defense during the impeachment proceedings.

3. Judicial independence55

553.1. General standards of judicial independence

603.2. The sanction of the judges based on the judgments they delivered

613.3. Institutional aspect of judicial independence, separation of powers, and democracy

683.4. Conclusion of the Court on judicial guarantees and political rights

4. Judicial protection69

5. Equality before the law73

73IX REPARATIONS

A.Injured party74

75B. Measures of satisfaction and restitution, and guarantees of non-repetition

751. Measures of satisfaction: publication of the Judgment

762. Measures of restitution

783. Guarantees of non-repetition amendment of domestic laws

80C.Compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage

1. Pecuniary damage80

821.1. Calculation of the pecuniary damage of the titular members

841.2. Analysis of the situation of the alternate member Manuel Jaramillo Crdova

861.3. Request for payment of interest

2. Non-pecuniary damage86

88D. Other measures of reparation

90E.Costs and expenses

91F.Method of complying with the payments ordered

92X OPERATIVE PARAGRAPHS

IINTRODUCTION OF THE CASE AND PURPOSE OF THE DISPUTE

1. The case submitted to the Court. On November 28, 2011, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 51 and 61 of the American Convention, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter the Inter-American Commission or the Commission) submitted to the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court (hereinafter submission brief), the case of Miguel Camba Campos et al. (Members of the Constitutional Tribunal) against the Republic of Ecuador (hereinafter the State or Ecuador), concerning the arbitrary termination of eight members of the Constitutional Tribunal of Ecuador by a decision of the National Congress of November 25, 2004, and the processing of impeachment proceedings against some of the members, during which the presumed victims had no procedural guarantees and were not given the opportunity to defend themselves in relation to the termination, [] and had no procedural guarantees [with regard to the] impeachment. The Commission also indicated that the [presumed] victims were arbitrarily and unreasonably prevented from filing amparo remedies against the termination decision and did not have access to an effective remedy for challenging the arbitrariness of the National Congress.

2. Proceedings before the Commission. The proceedings before the Commission were as follows:

a) Petition. On February 23, 2005, Miguel Camba Campos and another seven former members of the Constitutional Tribunal of Ecuador lodged the initial petition before the Commission;

b) Admissibility Report. On February 27, 2007, the Commission approved Admissibility Report No. 5/07;

c) Merits Report. On July 22, 2011, the Commission approved Merits Report No. 99/11, under Article 50 of the Convention (hereinafter also the Merits Report or Report No. 99/11), in which it established:

a. Conclusions. The Commission concluded that the State was responsible for violating the rights to a fair trial, to freedom from ex post facto laws, and to judicial protection, enshrined in Articles 8, 9 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations set out in Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, with respect to Miguel Camba Campos, Oswaldo Cevallos Bueno, Enrique Herrera Bonnet, Jaime Nogales Izurieta, Luis Rojas Bajaa, Mauro Tern Cevallos, Simn Zabala Guzmn and Manuel Jaramillo Crdova.

b. Recommendations. The Commission recommended:

1(a) Reinstate the victims in the judiciary, in positions similar to those they had held, with the same remuneration, social benefits, and a rank comparable to that they would hold today if their functions had not been terminated, for the period of time that remained in their terms, or

(b) If, for well-founded reasons, reinstatement is not possible, the State shall pay reasonable compensation to the victims or, if applicable, their heirs, taking into account the non-pecuniary harm caused.

2. Pay the victims the salaries, pensions, employment and/or social benefits they failed to receive from the time of their termination up to the date on which their terms would have ended.

3. Publicly acknowledge, with adequate publicity, the violations declared in the present case, in particular, the infringement on the independence of the Judiciary.

4. Adopt measures of non-repetition that ensure the independence of the Judiciary, including the measures necessary so that domestic law and applicable practice abide by clear criteria and ensure guarantees for the appointment, tenure, and removal of judges, in particular, a long enough term in judicial office to ensure their independence and determination of the grounds for impeachment, in accordance with the standards established in the American Convention.

d) Notification to the State. The Merits Report was notified to the State on July 28, 2011, granting it two months to provide