factual information and in order to comply with the laws in force, but had a completely different purpose related to the abuse of power. As the judgment stated:83 [T]he alliance of the Government in power at the time with the political party headed by former President Bucaram provides an indication of the possible reasons or purpose for wanting to remove the justices of the Supreme Court and the members of the Constitutional Tribunal; particularly, the existence of an interest in annulling the criminal proceedings that the Supreme Court was hearing against former President Bucaram (underlining added). 65. Indeed, the main violations in the instant case constitute an abrupt and totally unacceptable course of action of the political authorities, as the Judgment states, 84 against a basic pillar of the democratic rule of law such as the Judiciary and an authentically independent Constitutional Tribunal. The actions that attacked this essential principle of constitutional democracy represented a disregard for any manifestation of that independence and, therefore, for the principle of the separation of public powers, which is also a cornerstone of the entire protection of the human rights of the individual. A single fact that was found to be proved in this matter is sufficient to reveal the parliamentary abuse of power in this case. This is that, within the space of 14 days, not only the Supreme Court of Ecuador was dismissed, but also the country’s Electoral Tribunal and Constitutional Tribunal, as a result of the political and institutional context in this case, within a framework that was evidently contrary to the democratic rule of law. 66. The Judgment reaches this conclusion to which this opinion has also been referring. Thus, in in paragraph 221, it cites Article 3 of the Inter-American Democratic Charter, concluding that the dismissal of all the members of the Constitutional Tribunal entailed a destabilization of the existing democratic order in Ecuador, because it involved a rupture of the separation and independence of the public powers by the attack on the three high courts of Ecuador at that time. 67. Nevertheless, I consider that the Judgment should have placed greater emphasis on the anti-democratic attack that the public authorities made on the Constitutional Tribunal in this case. Thus, even though the ICourtHR declared the violation of Article 8(1) of the American Convention, owing to the violation of the right to be heard and to the guarantee of competence to the detriment of the eight victims as a result of their arbitrary termination and the impeachment proceedings; it should also have analyzed the violation of Article 8 in greater depth, from the perspective of the safeguard that the inter-American system professes for the democratic rule of law and, in particular, the independence of the judges who ensure its functioning, and who make it resistant to the assault of the political authorities. In addition, the Judgment should have made greater progress in the jurisprudential development of the Inter-American Democratic Charter, specifically in relation to the content of Article 3. The contentious function of the Inter-American Court consists in deciding the disputes that the Inter-American Commission and the parties submit to it in a specific case. It is undoubtable that it also has the mission to be guarantor of the principles that compose the inter-American human rights system. It can achieve this by guiding, by means of interpretation, the meaning of the said principles in order to clarify them. Thus, deciding the dispute between the parties and the implications of the law is one of the mandates of the inter-American jurisdiction, but not the only one, because it is also responsible for interpreting the American Convention, the importance of which is increased owing to the very few cases it hears. 83 Para. 211 of the Judgment. 84 Para. 212 of the Judgment. 16