grounds for his arrest and accused him of distorting public opinion about crimes committed by him, discrediting the prosecuting authorities and influencing the upcoming trial in order to avoid criminal liability (see paragraph 26 above). 109. In the Court’s opinion, such reasoning by the prosecuting authorities clearly demonstrates their attempt to punish the applicant for publicly disagreeing with accusations against him and for asserting his innocence, which he had the right to do. In such circumstances, the Court cannot but find that the restriction of the applicant’s liberty permitted under Article 5 § 1 (c) was applied not only for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence, but also for other reasons (underlining added(. 134. Thus, the European Court’s case law cited above allows it to be inferred that the analysis of the real grounds for a decision are related to proving the existence of an abuse in a specific case. In the Judgment that prompts this opinion, the ICourtHR took into account, with particular emphasis, the context of this case, as well as a series of irregularities that allegedly occurred in the session of November 25, 2004.177 135. In addition, the ICourtHR took into consideration irregularities that had occurred in the impeachment proceedings during the sessions of December 1 and 8, 2004, the latter when a new vote was taken on the impeachment of the judges.178 All the above allowed the Inter-American Court to conclude that:179 Taking into account the preceding considerations concerning the sessions of Congress of November 25, December 1 and December 8, 2004, in the instant case the Court observes that the judges were removed by a resolution of the National Congress, which lacked competence in this regard […], by a decision without any legal grounds […], and without being heard […]. Furthermore, a significant number of irregularities occurred during the impeachment proceedings: these proceedings were based on decisions relating to control of constitutionality adopted by the judges, which was prohibited by domestic law […]. As indicated previously […], the resolution deciding the termination of the judges was the result of a political alliance put together to create a Constitutional Tribunal that was aligned with the political majority that existed at that time and to prevent criminal proceedings against the President in power and a former President. It is worth underscoring that, the same day that the termination of the judges was declared, the judges who would replace them were appointed. Therefore, the apparent legality and justification of these decisions concealed the intention of a parliamentary majority to exercise greater control over the Constitutional Tribunal and to facilitate the termination of the justices of the Supreme Court. The Court has verified that the resolutions of Congress were not adopted based on the exclusive assessment of specific factual information and in order to ensure proper compliance with the laws in force, but sought a very different end related to an abuse of power aimed at obtaining control of the judicial function by different procedures; in this case, the termination and the impeachment proceedings. This resulted in a destabilization of both the Judiciary and the country in general […] and intensified the political crisis, with the negative effects that this entailed for the protection of the rights of the population. Consequently, the Court emphasizes that these elements allow it to affirm that a collective and arbitrary termination of judges is unacceptable, owing to the negative impact that this has on the institutional aspect of judicial independence. (Underlining added) 136. In addition to the provisions of the case law of the Strasbourg Court, it is worth mentioning also the Judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 25 February 1999, in the matter of Giannini v. Commission in which it was concluded that there was “objective, relevant and consistent evidence” indicating that the “contested measures [of the Commission of the European Communities] had been adopted with a view 177 Paras. 210 to 214 of the Judgment. 178 Paras. 215 to 218 of the Judgment. 179 Para. 219 of the Judgment. 39