confiscated from a drug trafficker,” concerns a decision in which the Supreme Court named itself as the depository of the confiscated aircraft. 20. Article of impeachment 10, titled the “bidding on the north tower of the Palace of Justice,” concerns a decision by the Court, sitting en banc, to declare the bidding deserted for failure to comply with the bidding specifications and conditions and the administrative standards in force on the subject of bidding. Article of impeachment 11, “egregious and widespread cases of nepotism,” alleges irresponsible and arbitrary management of human resources in the judicial branch. In the petitioner’s case, the charge was that six of his nephews were working in the judicial branch. The petitioner noted that his nephews were employed in the judicial branch prior to his appointment to the Supreme Court and stated further that the only requirement to enter public service is one’s qualifications. Article of impeachment 12, the “outrageous promotion of Judge Juan Carlos Paredes,” alleges that the judge in question had purportedly been involved in a drug trafficking case and that instead of being removed from the bench, he was allegedly rewarded with a promotion to the Court of Appeals. Article of impeachment 13, a supposed “self awarded salary increase,” alleges that the Supreme Court had given itself a salary increase. 21. Article 14, “Case of Mundy Recepciones v Itaipú Binational,” challenged the speed with which the case was decided, and the Constitutional Chamber’s decision to deny a constitutionality challenge brought by Itaipú Binational. Article 15, the “Case of Prosecutor Alejandro Nissen,” concerned a decision in which the Court, sitting en banc, had decided, at the request of the Trial Jury for Magistrates, to suspend the Prosecutor for the duration of his trial. Article of impeachment 16, “complaints of administrative irregularities in the school of veterinary sciences,” accuses the petitioner of influence peddling in a case that the Supreme Court was not hearing but that involved the petitioner’s wife, who was acting as an attorney in the case. The petitioner observes that the charges in the case were disproved in court and alleges that the Senators had chosen to disregard the court’s findings. Article of impeachment 17, supposed “influence peddling in the case of Magu S.R.L,” also concerns a criminal case in which the petitioner’s wife again served as an attorney, even though the case was lost on appeal and his wife allegedly had no role in the case filed in the administrative-contentious jurisdiction. Article of impeachment 18, “influence peddling in the Municipality of San Lorenzo trial,” alleges that the petitioner used his influence or connections in a case against a municipal mayor. The petitioner argues that at the time the articles of impeachment were brought, the case against the mayor was still in the preliminary phase, so that the petitioner could hardly have brought any influence to bear either for or against the mayor’s case. Article of impeachment 19, “complaint from Judge Alfredo Romero,” alleges that a criminal court judge was being pressured to resign. Lastly, article of impeachment 20, supposed “unlawful enrichment,” alleged that the petitioner’s “ostentatious” residence was significant evidence that he had engaged in unlawful enrichment, a charge allegedly disproved by sworn statements made before the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic. 22. According to the petitioner, the day after his defense arguments were made in the Senate Chamber, the prosecutors were forced to drop 14 of the 20 articles of impeachment charged in the impeachment trial (leaving articles 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 14). The petitioner states that four of the remaining six counts concerned rulings delivered by the Supreme Court, sitting en banc, or by the Supreme Court’s Constitutional Chamber. He argues that the justices were being impeached for rulings they delivered in exercise of their functions under the Constitution and the law, on cases submitted to the Court. He categorically asserts that this was an attack on the independence of the judicial branch of government.