trial. According to the petitioner, Supreme Court justices Jerónimo Irala Burgos and Raúl Sapena Brugada resigned their seats on the bench as the start of the trial –whose outcome was already a foregone conclusion- approached. Justices Felipe Santiago Paredes and Luis Lezcano Claude also eventually tendered their resignations, which meant that only Justices Carlos Fernández Gadea and Bonifacio Ríos Ávalos decided to face the impeachment trial. 17. The petitioner adds that when the articles of impeachment were handed down, the justices were given two days to submit their arguments or defense. However, they were allegedly not given a copy of the 20 articles of impeachment, making it materially impossible for them to prepare documents and evidence to disprove the charges. He explains further that the annex to the articles of impeachment consisted of some 900 pages. Even so, under the Rules, each Justice had only three hours to put on his defense before the full Senate. The petitioner contends that three hours was not sufficient to refute the charges. 18. The petitioner itemizes each of the twenty articles of impeachment and attaches documents to refute the charges. To clarify the nature of the charges against the petitioner, it is advisable to look at each of the counts in light of the information submitted by the petitioner. Article of impeachment 1, or count 1, a supposed “statement declaring that Supreme Court appointments are for life,” concerns a decision by the Supreme Court upholding the suit that three justices on the Court brought challenging the constitutionality of a 2000 administrative decision whereby the Senate removed them from the bench. The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, ruled that removal of justices serving on the bench of the Supreme Court is governed by Article 261 of the Constitution. Article of impeachment 2, or count 2, a supposed “deviation from the constitutional procedure for confirming judicial magistrates,” concerns a decision in which the Court, sitting en banc, denied an action brought by magistrates challenging the constitutionality of the law establishing the procedure by which judicial magistrates are confirmed. Article of impeachment 3, an alleged “”usurpation of legislative authority in tax-related matters,” refers to an administrative decision in which the Court, sitting en banc, reset the court fee in consultation with the Ministry of Finance. Article of impeachment 4, alleged “interference in the House of Representatives’ exercise of its constitutional functions,” concerns a ruling by the Constitutional Court in which an order from the House of Representatives summoning the Paraguayan Director General of the Yacyretá Binational Entity for questioning was suspended until the action filed was decided. Article of impeachment 5 alleged a “failure to meet procedural deadlines that was highly detrimental to the workings of government.” Its purpose was to charge the members of the Constitutional Chamber with nonobservance of court deadlines, given the backlog of cases in that chamber. 19. Article of impeachment 6 alleges an “attempt to thwart the authority of the legislative branch in order to keep Chamber 2 of the Court of Accounts functioning.” This charge concerns the Constitutional Chamber’s decision to suspend the effects of a law whose constitutionality was being challenged, until such time as the suit filed in the matter was decided. The suit concerned the National Congress’ decision to formally revoke the authority of the Court of Accounts, Chamber 2, to oversee the investment accounts in the General Budget of Expenditures of the Nation. The charge in article of impeachment 7 is a supposed “usurpation of constitutional authorities expressly reserved for the legislative branch of government, thereby seriously upsetting the balance of power and constituting a punishable offense against the constitutional system.” The charge asserts that the Supreme Court, sitting en banc, had upheld a constitutionality challenge with effects erga omnes, even though rulings of the Court are supposed to affect only the parties to the case. Article of impeachment 8 alleges a “reinterpretation of a principle of the code of criminal procedure.” This is in reference to the Criminal Chamber’s interpretation of a precept of the Criminal Code. Article of impeachment 9, a supposed “unlawful appropriation of two aircraft