90. On September 14, 2005, the Superior Court of Justice of Corrientes rejected the appeal on the following grounds: That an appeal has been brought before this Court and in view of the fact that the a final sentence has been issued in the case, the remedy must be rejected in limine on the grounds that the proceedings are finished and refer the matter to the Court for carrying out the sentence. (...) "Due to the specific characteristics of the cassation appeal, it is admissible when exercised against final decisions on the merits. The law specifically refers to situations prior to the sentencing, but that because of the contents of the resolution have the procedural effects of res judicata (...)”154 (...) The recusation of the Supreme Court judges, filed after the issuance of a ruling, is inadmissible and must be rejected outright; otherwise, an untimely and legally baseless recusation would become an inadmissible subterfuge to ensure that any regularly issued decision could be reversed by other judges, thus subverting the supreme character that the constitution attributes to the court.”155 91. On September 23, 2005, defense counsel filed a recurso de queja with the National Supreme Court of Justice, 156 arguing that: In the first place, it is obvious that the decision appealed is null and void because the composition of the Superior Court, when issuing it, violated of the legal provisions governing its operation. The Organic Law of the Administration of Justice of the Province of Corrientes (...) establishes the following: "Art. 20.- The Superior Court of Justice shall be composed of five Members. In order to function the Court requires the presence of three of its members, but will only take decisions by absolute majority of all of its members; (...) However, the Superior Court’s judgment (...) impugned in this extraordinary appeal was signed only by three of the five judges composing said court, and without a decision on composition pursuant to Decree Law 26/00.157 92. On November 30, 2006, the National Attorney General issued an opinion addressed to the Supreme Court of Justice of Argentina in which he concluded that there is no real challenge to the reasoning of the judgment appealed by defense counsel.158 The Attorney General alleged the following: The extraordinary appeal (...) does not meet the requirement of adequate grounds (...). Notwithstanding this, the applicant fails to demonstrate what damage has been caused by the alleged violation of the rules of court composition. In fact, the decision of the Superior Court rejecting the appeal was signed by three members of the court, without dissent. The applicant fails to show what would have been the outcome had the court been composed of five members, as he maintains that it should legally have been. (...) At the moment of explaining the grounds of his extraordinary appeal, there is also no evidence, on the part of defense counsel, that this is a reasoned challenge to the contested decision.(...)159 154 Resolution No. 131 of the Superior Court of Justice of Corrientes, September 14, 2005. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 155 Resolution No. 131 of the Superior Court of Justice of Corrientes, September 14, 2005. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 156 Recurso de Queja before the National Supreme Court, September 23, 2005. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 157 Recurso de Queja before the National Supreme Court, September 23, 2005. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 158 Opinion of the National Attorney General, November 30, 2006. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 159 Opinion of the National Attorney General, November 30, 2006. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 10, 2008. 10, 2008. 21