93. On March 20, 2007, the National Supreme Court of Justice issued a judgment declaring the extraordinary appeal submitted by defense counsel inadmissible. 160 The Supreme Court stated the following: That the extraordinary appeal, the denial of which gave rise to the recurso de queja, is inadmissible (Article 280 of the Civil and Commercial Procedural Code of the Nation). (...) Therefore, it is dismissed. (...) Notified to the parties and archived.161 4. Case – Intervention Commissioner of the Municipality of the City of Corrientes, Juan Carlos Zubieta on / Complaint 94. On July 24, 2000, defense counsel filed a motion for annulment with a subsidiary appeal against the decisions handed down in the case by Instructing Magistrate No.1 of Corrientes, 162 due to the irregular appointment of said judge for being placed ninth in the process of selection for the position of judge. Likewise, it was alleged that the rules on precedence were violated when designating Instructing Magistrate No.1 to oversee all cases against Mr. Romero Feris163. 95. In its pleadings, defense counsel stated as follows: Dr. Mario Payes –charged with deciding all proceedings against Raúl Rolando Romero Feris— had placed 9th in the Evaluation by the Council of Magistrates; at the moment of his nomination by the Executive Branch he held a position as advisor to the Ministry of Provincial Government; he had a negative public evaluation by the Magistrates’ Association and the Bar Association; he was nominated by Perié, then in charge of the Executive Branch, who later as Senator cast the decisive vote in the "accord" demanded by the Provincial Constitution; the Superior Court of Justice flagrantly violated procedural rules relating to jurisdiction in terms of connection and precedence.164 96. On August 18, 2000, the Instructing Prosecutor No. 1 submitted a pleading to the Judge in which he rejected the claim of nullity filed by defense counsel. 165 The Prosecutor argued that: That the argument of the defense refers to political and procedural issues, in an attempt to portray His Honor as a "Special Judge", as if our position had been created for the sole purpose of trying all the case of administrative corruption under study before and after the removal of the then Governor and Vice Governor of the Province, and of the Mayor of the City of Corrientes166. (…) That, regarding the appointment of the judges and its procedure, this matter is specifically regulated by Art. 142 of the Constitution of the Province of Corrientes, and therefore a statute cannot limit the attributions that the constitution establishes without restriction. 160 Judgment of the National Supreme Court of Justice, May 20, 2007. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 161 Judgment of the National Supreme Court of Justice, May 20, 2007. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 162 Nullity Motion with Subsidiary Appeal, July 24, 2000. Annex to petitioner’s communiqué of August 24, 2001. 163 Nullity Motion with Subsidiary Appeal, July 24, 2000. Annex to petitioner’s communiqué of August 24, 2001. 164 Nullity Motion with Subsidiary Appeal, July 24, 2000. Annex to petitioner’s communiqué of August 24, 2001. 165 Opinion of the Instructing Prosecutor No. 1 of Corrientes, August 18, 2000. Annex to petitioner’s communiqué of August 24, 166 Opinion of the Instructing Prosecutor No. 1 of Corrientes, August 18, 2000. Annex to petitioner’s communiqué of August 24, 2008. 2008. 2001. 2001. 22