(…) On April 24, 2002, the Chamber of Deputies was informed that the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court, in the case “Action of Unconstitutionality against Resolution No. 864/2002 of the Honorable Chamber of Deputies: Which Summons and Subpoenas the Paraguayan Director of Entidad Binacional Yacyretá, the Architect Walter Reiser,” had decided to issue A.I. No. 487, dated April 24, 2002, by which “the effects of Resolution No. 864/2002 are suspended.…” In this manner, the justices of the Constitutional Chamber were interfering in the exercise of a function assigned to the houses of Congress by the Constitution itself (…). What is most serious is that the decision was adopted with no legal foundation whatsoever (…). (…) 5. A failure to meet procedural deadlines, which was highly detrimental to the workings of government. Several important cases run the risk of expiring due to judicial delays and the slow pace with which cases are processed. The case against former Comptroller General of the Republic Daniel Fretes Ventre, accused of serious acts of corruption, was held up in the Constitutional Chamber for several months, to cite one example. The most serious example of the nefarious consequences of this negligent and irresponsible conduct is the legal scandal arising out of the delays in resolving various constitutionality challenges brought against Law No. 1626 of the Civil Service (…). (…) 7. Usurpation of constitutional authorities expressly reserved for the Legislative Branch, seriously upsetting the balance of power established in Article 3 of the Constitution, which constitutes the punishable offense of an “attack on the constitutional order.” The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, (…) by Agreement and Judgment No. 979 of September 18, 2002, decided to (…) rule in favor of an action brought by the Attorney General challenging the constitutionality of Article 5 of Law No. 1444/99 “On Transition,” within the scope established in the last part of Article 137 of the National Constitution (…). The Supreme Court strayed from the explicit and specific mandates of the National Constitution, encroaching on the precise and explicit sphere of another branch of government (due to either clear ignorance of the law or intentional omission), more precisely attributing to itself legislative powers that are the exclusive purview of the National Congress (…) (…) 14. The Case of Mundy Recepciones or “Croquetas de Oro” (“Gold Croquettes”). The Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court (…) on February 28, 2002, issued Agreement and Judgment No. 62, rejecting the action brought by ITAIPU Binacional that challenged the constitutionality of S.D. No. 305 of April 9, 2001 (…) and Agreement and Judgment No. 101 of August 9 of that same year (…) which resulted in a judgment against ITAIPU BINACIONAL for the sum [in local currency, guaranis] of TEN BILLION FIVE HUNDRED NINETY-SEVEN MILLION, FIVE HUNDRED SEVENTEEN THOUSAND, FIVE HUNDRED SEVENTY-FIVE GUARANIS (…). Considering the notorious speed with which the case in question was conducted, there are serious indications of bias, more so considering that one of the lawyers for the plaintiff was none other than the brother of Justice Carlos Fernández Gadea. Beyond the speed of the case, which could constitute improper performance of duties, the aforementioned conduct falls under the crime of malfeasance established in Article 305 of the Criminal Code.9 31. On November 22, 2003, the Senate issued Resolution No. 122 establishing the Rules of Procedure for the Handling of the Impeachment Trial against the aforementioned justices. That resolution stipulated, in its pertinent sections, the following: Article 2.- No preliminary issues, recusals, matters of prior and special pronouncement, or confession evidence (prueba confesoria) shall be admitted. All resolutions adopted by the Honorable Senate in the presence of the parties or their representatives shall be considered notified in their own right; others Annex 6. Resolution No. 134 of the Chamber of Deputies bringing articles of impeachment against the justices. Annex to the State’s written observations of September 22, 2010. 9 6