69. On November 3, 2006, defense counsel filed an extraordinary appeal with the Superior Court of Justice of the Province of Corrientes against the decision issued on October 19, 2006. 113 Defense counsel argued that: (...) the intervention of the challenged magistrate as a member of the court that convicted the defendant satisfied the requirement of a lack of subjective impartiality in the terms of Articles 18 of the National Constitution and Article 8.1 of the American Convention, on the grounds that their parent/child relationship with a previous magistrate of the same tribunal constituted a conflict of interest demanding withdrawal from the case (...).114 70. On February 20, 2007, the Superior Court of Justice of Corrientes decided not to grant the extraordinary appeal filed by defense counsel. 115 The Superior Tribunal established the following: On the basis of the jurisprudential rule frequently mentioned by the Court "(...) that arbitrariness does not cover mere discrepancies between what was decided by the Judge and what was alleged by the parties ...", it is clear that defense counsel of the convicted Romero Feris, reiterates similar arguments in each one of their briefs in different instances; and when facing rejection of their criticism of the proceedings and legal decisions reached, they continue to insist on the existence of alleged breaches of the principles in the Constitution.116 (…) Neither does defense counsel indicate which were the elements in the cassation decision that were omitted or that were resolved, or that when resolved, openly contradicted the applicable law or any of the other grounds (...).117 71. On March 5, 2007, defense counsel filed a recurso de queja with the National Supreme Court of Justice against the decision of the Superior Court of the Province of Corrientes,118 in order to annul the sentence imposed on Mr. Romero Feris.119 72. On September 28, 2007, the Public Ministry, through the Public Prosecutor, requested that the National Supreme Court of Justice reject the queja filed by Romero Feris’ defense counsel on the following grounds: We are not dealing with a case where the intangibility of the actions subject to judicial decision has been affected, but rather we face different points of view on the adequacy of the type of participation in the crime of embezzlement, attributed to Romero Feris. Therefore, I consider that, (...) federal rights and guarantees are not affected here. (…) Clarifying the scope of Article 52, paragraph 11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Corrientes (does it cover the interventions of close relatives in cases connected by 113 Extraordinary Federal Appeal, November 3, 2006. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 114 Extraordinary Federal Appeal, November 3, 2006. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 115 Resolution of the Superior Court of Justice of Corrientes, February 20, 2007. Annex to Petitioner’s communication dated July 10, 2008. 116 Resolution of the Superior Court of Justice of Corrientes, February 20, 2007. Annex to Petitioner’s communication dated July 10, 2008. 117 Resolution of the Superior Court of Justice of Corrientes, February 20, 2007. Annex to Petitioner’s communication dated July 10, 2008. 118 Recurso de Queja, March 5, 2007. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 119 Recurso de Queja, March 5, 2007. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 16