precedence. 32 Defense counsel requested that the appeal be granted and forwarded to the corresponding Criminal Chamber on the grounds of violation of constitutional guarantees, such as that of the natural judge.33 32. On June 20, 2001, the Criminal Chamber No. 2 of Corrientes issued a decision in which it decided "not to grant the appeal filed".34 The Chamber upheld the decision of Instructing Magistrate No.1 of June 4, 2001. The Chamber stated the following: (...) the magistrate has attributions, based on subjective connection and precedence, to hear the cases. This circumstance does not in any way infringe the guarantee of a natural judge as the appellants wrongly claim. (...) Also erroneous is defense counsel’s statement alleging that the exemption of precedence for Instructing Court No.1 as established by decision of the Superior Court of Justice, converts the magistrate in charge of this court into a "special judge ". This magistrate is operating within the framework established by the Superior Court in exercise of its inherent and exclusive superintendency functions. (...) There are no null and void procedural steps taken by the first instance judge, connected with his appointment.35 33. On July 18, 2001, defense counsel filed a cassation appeal before the Criminal Chamber No. 2,36 requesting that its decision of June 20, 2001, be rescinded, and that the case be returned to the lower instance for a new substantive ruling. 37 Two days later, the Criminal Chamber No. 2 issued a decision declaring the cassation appeal inadmissible,38 on the ground that "the resolution at issue is not specifically connected to the object of the appeal".39 34. On February 20, 2002, defense counsel filed a brief with Criminal Chamber No. 2, requesting that the proceedings be declared null and void on the grounds of the new composition of that court. 40 Defense counsel argued that: The [three judges] appointed (...) cannot be considered as "natural judges" in this case, according to Article 18 of the National Constitution and Article 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, since their appointment as magistrates was effected in clear breach of Article 142 of the Constitution of the Province of Corrientes. (...) The fundamentals of this objection are that, when the appointment of the Magistrates for Judge of Criminal Chamber no. 2 (...) was made, the Executive Branch of the Province ... violated the constitution by appointing temporary judges at a time in which the Chamber of Senators was gathered in Extraordinary Sessions and was not in recess, thereby rendering such appointments null and void and arbitrary.41 32 Appeal Motion, June 7, 2001. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 33 Appeal Motion, June 7, 2001. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 34 Resolution 276 of Criminal Chamber No.2 of Corrientes, June 20, 2001. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 35 Resolution 276 of Criminal Chamber No.2 of Corrientes, June 20, 2001. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 36 Cassation Appeal, July 18, 2001. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 37 Cassation Appeal, July 18, 2001. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 38 Resolution No. 314 of Criminal Chamber No.2 of Corrientes, June 20, 2001. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 39 Resolution No. 314 of Criminal Chamber No.2 of Corrientes, June 20, 2001. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 40 Request for Annulment, February 20, 2002. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008 41 Request for Annulment, February 20, 2002. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008 2008. 2008. 10, 2008. 10, 2008. 7