57. On February 13, 2007, the National Supreme Court of Justice issued a judgment stating that the appeal presented by defense counsel was inadmissible. 90 The IACHR notes that in addition to invoking Article 280 of the National Civil and Commercial Procedural Code, that judgment does not indicate the reasons why the appeal was declared inadmissible. 2. Case - Romero Feris Raúl Rolando and Zidianakis, Andrés for Embezzlement-Capital 58. The IACHR observes that in this case, as in the previous case, Mr. Romero Feris’ defense counsel filed a nullity and subsidiary appeal motion with Instructing Magistrate No.1, 91 which was rejected. 92 The Commission notes that the arguments put forward in both motion and its rejection are substantially similar to those in the previous case. 59. On September 7, 2001, defense counsel raised the exception of lack of jurisdiction and competence before the Instructing Magistrate No.1. 93 On March 18, 2004, Instructing Magistrate No. 6 declared the request inadmissible on the following grounds: It should also be borne in mind that the question raised has already been settled by Honorable Superior Court of Justice in the case "RECURSO DE QUEJA FOR DENIED CASSATION IN CASE NO. 5085 (38.707) "(...) resolution No. 107 dated August 08, 2001, which rejected the recurso de queja for denied cassation due to the absence of a federal question on "arbitrary judgment". CASE No. 38707 of this Court’s registry is consolidated.94 60. On March 24, 2004, Mr. Romero Feris’ defense counsel filed an appeal in which he indicated that the matter had not been given due consideration and requested that the case be dismissed.95 Defense counsel also requested that the case be referred to the appropriate Criminal Chamber. Defense counsel added the following: On the one hand, the cases have not been consolidated in the terms of Art. 40 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and therefore the decisions issued in the consolidated cases - with the intervention of the same court for all the cases processed - are not operative, and therefore not executable in the case under study.96 61. On April 12, 2004, Instructing Magistrate No.1 issued an order rejecting the request for dismissal and ordered referral of the case to the Criminal Chamber No. 2 of the City of Corrientes. 97 The Judge indicated the following: 90 Judgment of the Argentine Supreme Court of Justice, February 13, 2007. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 91 Nullity Motion with Subsidiary Appeal, July 27, 2000. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 10, 2008. Order No. 1264 of the Instructing Magistrate No.1 of the City of Corrientes, September 26, 2000. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 92 93 Motion on Exceptions, September 7, 2001. Annex to petitioner’s communication of xxx, xxx. Order No. 182 of the Instructing Judge No. 6 of the Province of Corrientes, March 18, 2004. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 94 95 Appeal Motion, March 24, 2004. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 96 Appeal Motion, March 24, 2004. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. Order No. 226 of the Instructing Magistrate No.1 of the City of Corrientes, April 24, 2004. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 97 13