## Facts

- Ecuador’s constitutional reforms granted Supreme Court judges tenure stability and established procedures for judicial appointments and vacancies.
- In December 2004, during a political crisis, Ecuador’s National Congress removed all sitting Supreme Court judges by resolution, without individualized charges, hearings, or reasoned decisions.
- A new Supreme Court was rapidly appointed and issued decisions with major political effects; amid continued turmoil, it was later dissolved, and its appointments were annulled.
- The removed judges were not reinstated; the country lacked a functioning Supreme Court for roughly seven months while a new selection mechanism was developed.
- Twenty-seven removed judges sought domestic relief, including constitutional amparo, but challenges were not admitted because amparo was treated as unavailable against congressional decisions.
- Proceedings were brought in the inter-American system; Ecuador partially acknowledged international responsibility but disputed the full scope of alleged violations.
- Ecuador raised a preliminary objection to the tribunal’s competence; it was rejected.

## Issues

1. Whether the collective removal of Supreme Court judges by congressional resolution, without individualized procedures, violated fair-hearing guarantees and due process under Article 8(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights.
2. Whether the arbitrary termination of judges’ tenure violated political rights to remain in public service under Article 23(1)(c) and impaired judicial independence.
3. Whether Ecuador violated the right to judicial protection under Article 25(1) by failing to provide an effective remedy to challenge the removals.
4. Whether Ecuador’s objection to the tribunal’s competence was barred or otherwise incompatible with Ecuador’s prior acceptance of jurisdiction.
5. What reparations and guarantees of non-repetition were required to remedy the violations and prevent recurrence.

## Decision

- The tribunal dismissed Ecuador’s preliminary objection and exercised jurisdiction.
- Ecuador was held internationally responsible for violating Articles 8(1), 23(1)(c), and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1), with respect to the 27 removed judges.
- The tribunal found the removals were arbitrary, politically driven, and executed without minimum due process protections, directly harming judicial independence.
- The tribunal ordered reparations, including compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary harm, costs and expenses, publication measures, and institutional reforms to prevent repetition.

## Legal Principles

- Judicial independence requires stability in office; removal of judges must be based on legally defined causes and conducted through procedures that satisfy due process.
- Legislative or political characterization of a removal decision does not avoid fair-hearing obligations when the act determines individuals’ rights and obligations, including the right to remain in judicial office.
- Article 23(1)(c) protects not only access to public service on equal terms but also non-arbitrary conditions for remaining in public office, particularly where independence guarantees are implicated.
- Article 25(1) requires an effective remedy capable of reviewing the legality and constitutionality of a dismissal; categorical unavailability of review for certain state acts can violate judicial protection.
- A State’s partial acknowledgment of responsibility may narrow dispute points but does not eliminate the tribunal’s duty to determine the scope of violations and appropriate reparations.

## Conclusion

The tribunal concluded that Ecuador’s mass removal of Supreme Court judges, carried out without individualized proceedings and without an effective mechanism for judicial review, violated due process, political rights to remain in public service, and the right to an effective remedy, and required both compensation and legal reforms to safeguard judicial independence.


Quintana Coello v. Ecuador, Judgment (Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. Aug. 23, 2013)