the Special Session of the National Congress held on December 12, 2003, during the impeachment trial against the justices of the Supreme Court, in which he stated the following: “What is an impeachment trial and what distinguishes it from a court proceeding? […] The impeachment trial was developed as a parliamentary procedure to take away authority from an official who was deemed to be corrupt and incompetent. […] Some of the rules that are essential in court proceedings do not apply in the case of an impeachment trial, such as the principle of the impartiality of the judges. […] The rule prohibiting prejudgment does not apply either, because politics is waged on the field of confrontation and dispute.” 38. The State argues that the Constitution of Paraguay lists poor performance as one of the grounds for impeachment. Therefore, the petitioner was impeached on the grounds that the Law prescribes. According to the State, 14 of the 20 counts were dropped not for lack of grounds, but because presenting the evidence to prove those charges would have taken too much time and would have dragged out the proceedings and delayed the impeachment verdict. 39. The State also makes specific reference to the 6 counts considered to remove the petitioner from the bench. Concerning article of impeachment 1, the State observes that the ruling is a juridical outrage, riddled with irrational and unlawful interpretation. Concerning article of impeachment 2, the State alleges that the impeached justices did not interpret the case put to them; instead, they delivered a twisted interpretation that misrepresented the Constitution. As for article of impeachment 4, the State contends that the law was stretched in order to grant a measure that was in violation of the Constitution. Concerning article of impeachment 5, the State argues that the conduct of the impeached justices was one of complete indolence and negligence. As for article of impeachment 7, the State contends that the impeached justices delivered a ruling with erga omnes effects, in violation of the Constitution. Finally, in the case of article of impeachment 14, the State explains that “all good citizens in Paraguay regarded the suit that Mundy Recepciones brought against Itaipú Binational as treasonous.” 40. The Paraguayan State argues that the principle of nondiscrimination established in Article 24 of the Convention was not violated, because in an impeachment, the National Congress has exclusive authority to decide who will and who will not be tried. It adds that juridical treatment that is different is not necessarily discriminatory, because not every difference in treatment can, by itself, be regarded as offensive to human dignity. The State explains that “the impeachment trial was undertaken against those six ministers on the Supreme Court whose presence in the judicial branch was adversely affecting its ability to function fully, normally and properly and was damaging its image.” 41. The State reports that by Resolution 34/03 of November 19, 2003, the House of Representatives sent the articles of impeachment to the Senate Chamber, which served as the order setting the matter for criminal trial 1,697/04, prosecuted in the criminal jurisdiction. The petitioner was one of the defendants named. 42. As for the exhaustion of local remedies, the State observes that on November 27, 2003, the petitioner filed an action challenging the constitutionality of Senate Resolution 122, passed on November 25, 2003. The State explains that after a number of magistrates recused themselves, a hearing was held on April 20 and the prosecutor’s office recommended that the two challenges brought by the petitioner be joined. According to the State, the claim that no justice wants to sit on the Constitutional Court is false. It asserts that once all the members of that chamber have been seated the decision and ruling required under the law will be delivered on the challenge that the petitioner brought. It argues that disqualifications and recusals cannot be used to delay or deny justice.