65. On August 10, 2005, Criminal Chamber No. 2 rejected the recusation filed by defense counsel.106 The Chamber stated the following: Having analyzed the file (...) and having submitted similar arguments relating to the same accused - Raúl Romero Feris - , regarding similar situations as resolved in Decision No. 265 dated June 13, 2005, and given the subjective connection existing between the cases, it is now decided to revoke the decision adopted on 5-8-05, and consequently leaving without effect, the composition of the Court and the relevant draw.107 66. On December 20, 2005, Criminal Chamber No. 2 delivered judgment No. 139 by which Raúl Rolando Romero Feris was sentenced to five years' imprisonment and perpetual disqualification as coperpetrator of the crime of embezzlement.108 67. On February 20, 2006, defense counsel lodged a cassation appeal. 109 Defense counsel requested nullification on the basis of the intervention of Judge Dr. Cintia Teresita Godoy Prats in the following terms: The activity of Dr. Luis Godoy Prats, father of the Magistrate (...) as agent of the joint plaintiff in the case "FISCAL AGENT No. 2S / NOTITIA CRIMINIS-CAPITAL". Case Mp/33.509 referred to "above", even when consolidation of cases has not been decided, cannot be ignored due to subjective connection between those cases and the present one, as well as the rest in which Raúl Rolando Romero Feris under process (...). This connection, in light of the express provision of first part of Art. 40 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, demands the intervention of a single court – despite the lack of consolidation – meaning the same composition for all connected cases, regardless of their being consolidated or not.(...)110 68. On October 19, 2006, the Superior Court of Justice of Corrientes rejected the cassation appeal filed by defense counsel. 111 The Superior Court indicated the following: As for the intervention in the trial by Judge Godoy Prats, I consider it completely valid because, as the following doctrinal opinion clarifies, when dealing with this issue (...), the second clause prohibits the intervention of two magistrates who are relatives in the same case within the established limitations (...). (…) Those filing the recusation have not shown that in these cases or in other connected cases, these members of the Chamber, related by close blood ties, have agreed to issue decisions against the accused, which is the reason to recuse them successfully.112 106 Order No. 382 of Criminal Chamber No.2 of Corrientes, August 10, 2005. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 107 Order No. 382 of Criminal Chamber No.2 of Corrientes, August 10, 2005. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 108 Cassation Appeal, February 20, 2006. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 109 Cassation Appeal, February 20, 2006. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 110 Cassation Appeal, February 20, 2006. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 111 Judgment of the Superior Court of Justice of Corrientes, October 19, 2006. Annex to Petitioner’s communication dated July 112 Judgment of the Superior Court of Justice of Corrientes, October 19, 2006. Annex to Petitioner’s communication dated July 10, 2008. 10, 2008. 10, 2008. 10, 2008. 15