24. The IACHR notes that, on the basis of this complaint, more than fifty criminal investigations were opened against Mr. Romero Feris and other individuals. Likewise, according to the report submitted by the Argentine State in 2010, in three of them a final judgment has been reached.18 25. Below, the Commission will make its findings of fact in the light of the copies of the proceedings in its possession, relating to four criminal cases against Mr. Romero Feris and other individuals. The Commission further emphasizes that these documents do not fully clarify the chronology of the aforementioned proceedings in their entirety. Rather they relate to remedies filed specifically in connection with the alleged due process violations. In the context of these remedies, Mr. Romero Feris repeatedly argued that such due process violations - particularly the right to be tried by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal - were committed as a form of political persecution through the opening of criminal cases by judicial authorities appointed specifically for this purpose. Mr. Romero Feris constantly alleges in these remedies that the appointment of judicial authorities and the irregular assignments of jurisdiction were instrumental to this political persecution. 1. Case - SITRAJ-Corrientes On Complaint-Capital 26. On July 27, 2000, Mr. Romero Feris’s defense counsel filed motion for nullity with a subsidiary appeal with Instructing Magistrate No.1 of the City of Corrientes. 19 In that application, he alleged that the said judge had been appointed in an irregular manner thus violating the principle of a natural judge.20 Defense counsel indicated that this judge was appointed to the bench despite the fact that he was ranked in ninth place against other candidates for the position and that therefore there were eight better-qualified applicants before him. 21 Defense council added that prior to his appointment as a judge, this individual held the position of adviser to the Ministerial Secretary General of the Provincial Government. 22 He also indicated that "the maneuver destined to creating a covered 'special tribunal', must be analyzed in context and as a first step," and that subsequently the rules on jurisdiction assignment were violated. Defense counsel pointed out in more detail that 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.23 27. On September 26, 2000, Instructing Magistrate No.1 rejected Mr. Romero’s defense counsel’s allegations. 24 On that occasion, the Instructing Prosecutor No.1 stated the following (...) That regarding the appointment of judges and related proceedings, this issue is specially regulated by Article 142 of the Provincial Constitution and the law cannot limit powers 18 Report by the Judicial Branch of the Province of Corrientes. Annex to the Argentine State’s communication on December 13, 19 Nullity Appeal Motion with Subsidiary Appeal, July 27, 2000. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 20 Nullity Appeal Motion with Subsidiary Appeal, July 27, 2000. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 21 Nullity Appeal Motion with Subsidiary Appeal, July 27, 2000. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 22 Nullity Appeal Motion with Subsidiary Appeal, July 27, 2000. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 23 Nullity Appeal Motion with Subsidiary Appeal, July 27, 2000. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 24 Order No. 1267 of the Instructing Magistrate No.1, September 26, 2000. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2013. 2008. 5