Thus the law creating the Magistrates Council does not impose on the Executive Branch the obligation to appoint neither the first nor even the first three candidates on the list.167 (...) What has been expressed above is sufficient to reject the Nullity Motion pursuant to Art. 170, section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but it is necessary to examine further into defense counsel’s brief in order to uncover this attempted dilatory maneuvering.168 97. On April 5, 2001, Instructing Magistrate No.1 of Corrientes rejected the motion for annulment. 169 The Judge argued that: (...) I must state that in addition to the fact that the appointment of the undersigned was carried out in accordance with the constitution (Article 142 of the Constitution of the Province of Corrientes), the appointment of judges is exclusive to the competence of political branches, and its regular exercise is supervised by other instruments, such as those corresponding to constitutional procedural law: autonomous action of unconstitutionality, for example.170 (…) The Hon. Superior Court of Justice (...) has decided (...) to assign the consolidated cases against the accused Raúl Rolando Romero Feris to Instructing Court No.1. This decision, to date, stands final and consented. (...) Therefore, it is beyond the competence of the undersigned to reexamine a decision by the Superior Court which in any case should be subject to a remedy before a Higher Federal Court since (...)171. 98. Defense counsel filed an appeal against that decision, alleging the following: The nullity motion filed was addressed at all the procedural acts performed by the Instructing Magistrate and the nullity invoked against the violation of the constitutional guarantee of the Natural Judge. (...) The modalities and irregularities in the appointment process and non-observance of the rules in the appointment and precedence make Magistrate Payes a Special Judge and therefore this last circumstance makes all procedural acts null and void.172 99. On May 31, 2001, Criminal Chamber No. 2 issued a decision rejecting the appeal. 173 Likewise, the Chamber upheld the resolution of April 5, 2001, of Instructing Magistrate No.1. 174 The Chamber held the following: It is important to bear in mind, with regard to these issues, that the appellant has already appeared before the Superior Court of Justice and obtained a negative response to his claims. Another obstacle for the lower court to rule on the nullities.175 167 Opinion of the Instructing Prosecutor No. 1 of Corrientes, August 18, 2000. Annex to petitioner’s communiqué of August 24, 168 Opinion of the Instructing Prosecutor No. 1 of Corrientes, August 18, 2000. Annex to petitioner’s communiqué of August 24, 2001. 2001. 169 Resolution No. 615 of the Instructing Magistrate No.1 of Corrientes, April 5, 2001. Annex to petitioner’s communiqué of August 24, 2001. 170 Resolution No. 615 of the Instructing Magistrate No.1 of Corrientes, April 5, 2001. Annex to petitioner’s communiqué of August 24, 2001. 171 Resolution No. 615 of the Instructing Magistrate No.1 of Corrientes, April 5, 2001. Annex to petitioner’s communiqué of August 24, 2001. 172 Appeal Motion. Annex to petitioner’s communiqué of August 24, 2001. 173 Decision No.125 of Criminal Chamber No.2, May 31, 2001. Annex to petitioner’s communiqué of August 24, 2001. 174 Decision No.125 of Criminal Chamber No.2, May 31, 2001. Annex to petitioner’s communiqué of August 24, 2001. 23