subjectivity?) Is a local law issue that, in principle, lacks sufficiency to be considered a federal case.120 (…) In my view, the appellant does not demonstrate arbitrariness in the determination of responsibility (...)121. 73. On December 18, 2007, the National Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the queja filed by defense counsel, 122 indicating the following: That the extraordinary appeal, the denial of which is the reason for this queja, is inadmissible (Article 280 of the Civil and Commercial Procedural Code of the Nation). (...) Therefore, after hearing the Public Prosecutor, the queja is rejected (...)123. 3. Case - Romero Feris, Raúl Rolando; Isleta, Jorge Eduardo; Megrim, Manuel Alberto on / Embezzlement; Ortega, Lucia Placida on/ Embezzlement and use of false documents Capital 74. On March 9, 2001, defense counsel raised before Instructing Magistrate No. 1 of Corrientes the exception of lack of jurisdiction and competence,124 on the ground that that the judge selection violated the guarantee of natural judge provided for by the Argentine Constitution. 125 The IACHR notes that the documents submitted by the petitioners do not include the decision on this remedy. 75. On August 6, 2001, defense counsel filed a recusation against the members of Criminal Chamber no. 2. 126 Defense counsel noted the following: (...) the members of this Hon. Chamber, intervened during the instruction phase as Court of Appeal, therefore hearing in appeal the totality of the procedural steps during that stage in connection with the resolutions adopted by the Instructing Magistrate. Having confirmed the Indictment Order issued against our client, as well as confirming the corresponding Order to Proceed to Trial.127 76. On August 17, 2001, Criminal Chamber No. 2 declared the recusation inadmissible. 128 The Chamber stated the following: The challenge must be declared inadmissible. In Art. 59 of the applicable code, governing the requirements for recusation establish that the party filing the recusation must state among other elements the grounds on which it is based [Art. 52 of the same applicable code]. The 120 Opinion of the Public Ministry, National Attorney General, September 28, 2007. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 121 Opinion of the Public Ministry, National Attorney General, September 28, 2007. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 122 Order of the Argentine National Supreme Court of Justice, December 18, 2007. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 123 Order of the Argentine National Supreme Court of Justice, December 18, 2007. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 124 Exceptions Motion, March 9, 2001. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 125 Exceptions Motion, March 9, 2001. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 126 Recusation with Cause, August 6, 2001. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 127 Recusation with Cause, August 6, 2001. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. Resolution No. 356 of Criminal Chamber No.2 of Corrientes, August 17, 2001. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 128 17