35. On February 22, 2002, Criminal Chamber No. 2 issued a resolution in which it "rejected in limine, the nullity claim regarding the composition of this Court, for being the inappropriate remedy to achieve that result, the claimants having had the opportunity to invoke all proper remedies." 42 The Chamber held the following: (...) the claim at issue is not addressed at a procedural act within in this case, but rather at a political act by the Provincial Executive Branch, in the exercise of its own legal powers. (...) The argument of absolute nullity of this Court’s composition is procedurally inadmissible due to the fact that the remedy is not appropriate to challenge the validity and/or constitutionality of actions by other branches of government for which there are other procedural remedies that can be invoked by those who seek nullification. (...) It should be noted that the only circumstances that would justify the lawful removal of a judge from hearing the case would consist of his patent incompetence established by recusing, excusing or inhibiting of the judge, which have not been brought up by the parties. At no time has there been an argument on the incompetence of this Tribunal nor do its members consider themselves to be so; there has been no recusation against them and there is no reason for them to excuse themselves and therefore any request for replacement is inappropriate.43 36. The Chamber also recommended that Mr. Romero's defense counsel "exercise remedies according substantive and procedural applicable constitutional rules in force, in order to avoid a misuse of jurisdiction and a delay in the proceedings.” 37. On March 8, 2002, defense counsel lodged a cassation appeal against that decision. 44 On March 14, 2002, the Chamber declared the appeal inadmissible,45 on the grounds that "the decision appeal did not represent a final judgment".46 38. On March 19, 2002, defense counsel filed a recurso de queja against the decision of the Superior Court of Justice of Corrientes, 47 requesting that the aforementioned resolution be rescinded and that the proceedings by Criminal Chamber No.2 be declared null and void.48 39. On May 7, 2002, the Superior Court of Justice of Corrientes issued a resolution stating: The claimants allege that the appointment of the court’s composition is unconstitutional and their competence to issue the decision violates the "natural and impartial judge" guarantee. They argue that a different court should have resolved the annulment and constitutionality request filed by the claimants. (...) The claimant explains the prima facie grounds for a direct remedy and its validity thus fulfilling its procedural burden. (...) In view of the fact that the filing of the recurso de queja suspends the decision impugned while not impeding the 42 Resolution No. 22 of Criminal Chamber No.2 of Corrientes, February 22, 2002. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 43 Resolution No. 22 of Criminal Chamber No.2 of Corrientes, February 22, 2002. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 44 Cassation Appeal, March 8, 2000. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. Resolution No. 134 of Criminal Chamber No.2 of Corrientes, March 14, 2002. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 45 46 Resolution No. 134 of Criminal Chamber No.2 of Corrientes, March 14, 2002. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 47 Recurso de queja, March 19, 2002. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 48 Recurso de queja, March 19, 2002. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 8