In a country where the judiciary is under siege by a government-funded corruption investigation, Ecuador’s judiciary has faced many challenges to its independence, including being unable to appoint new judges due to a lack of funding and a judicial system with a strong bias against political opponents.
A recent ruling from the Supreme Court, however, has opened the way for the judiciary to be granted judicial independence, and a group of judges are set to make their mark on the country in a series of hearings starting today.
The first hearing, which is expected to last for two weeks, will consider the judicial independence of the Supreme Judicial Tribunal (SSCT), a body of judges that was created by Ecuador’s constitutional reforms.
The Supreme Judicial Panel will also be tasked with overseeing the establishment of the judicial reforms, which will be the subject of a second hearing later this year.
The SSCT, which was created in June 2016, was established to resolve disputes between different parties and to enforce constitutional amendments, including the constitutional amendment that granted the right to free speech.
Its first hearing was held in December, and the latest hearing will be held in January, with the results of the hearings expected in March.
The Constitutional Court of Ecuador, a branch of the country’s Supreme Court that has been operating under the auspices of the government for decades, also has a judicial independence case pending against it.
But the court’s independence case has been dismissed on procedural grounds in recent months.
This means that the Constitutional Court will not be able to make a decision on the independence of any judges it appoints.
Instead, the court will have to consult with the Ministry of Justice before making any decision on its own.
But in a recent case, the Supreme Constitutional Court ruled that the Ministry had the power to appoint judges who had not been subject to the Supreme Tribunal’s previous rulings.
This is in contrast to the situation with the Supreme Political Council (SPCC), which has the power of appointing judges from the lower courts.
The new court’s power to hire judges from lower courts is based on Article 8 of the constitution, which states that judges shall be appointed in accordance with the law.
However, the law is not fully applied to the case of judges appointed by the SPCC.
As a result, the Constitutional Chamber in October 2016 decided to grant full independence to the SCPC.
The decision came after the Supreme Chamber ruled in November 2016 that the Constitution does not apply to judges appointed from the SPC.
The SCPC was created under the law to resolve judicial disputes and is tasked with implementing the constitution.
In its first hearing in October, the SCPCC ruled that Article 8 does not require the Supreme Electoral Council to make any appointments of judges from other regions, and that the constitutional assembly could not determine how to appoint the judges.
In an earlier case, a lower court had ruled that it is not necessary for the SPPC to have the authority to appoint all judges in the country.
The court’s reasoning in that case is similar to the reasoning used by the Constitutional Committee in the recent SCPC ruling.
The case is still pending, but the Constitutional Council will likely be tasked in the coming weeks with finding ways to amend the constitution to address the court ruling.