Palacio states that declarative judgments are judgments that eliminate a lack of certainty with respect to the existence, effectiveness, modality, or interpretation of a legal relationship or status. Such is the case for judgment 293; after it was notified to the plaintiff’s attorney (pg. 325), no clarification or appeal was filed. The defendant filed an extraordinary federal appeal, which was not granted, pursuant to the resolution set forth on pages 395-398. [...] Consequently, the settlement of the principle and interest as set forth in pages 404-405 cannot proceed [...]. 31 35. Mr. Boleso filed an extraordinary federal appeal against the decision of September 28, 1999, on the grounds that it was arbitrary. 32 In judgment 302 of August 8, 2000, the Superior Court of Justice of Corrientes rejected the appeal. 33 36. In response to the decision of the Superior Court of Justice of Corrientes, on September 1, 2000, Mr. Boleso filed a motion for reconsideration of dismissal of extraordinary federal appeal before the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation. 34 During the processing of this appeal, he filed procedural motions on April 16, 2003, and July 8, 2003. 35 37. On August 21, 2003, the Argentine Supreme Court of Justice issued Ruling B. 930. XXXVI, ordering invalidation of the judgment of September 28, 1999, and the issuance of a new judgment in accordance with what had been determined in the original judgment. It held that "recognizing a right[,] but denying it an appropriate remedy is tantamount to disregarding it" and that "the provincial court's decision undermines legal certainty and procedural economy and amounts to a break with the operative nature of constitutional provisions that the Court has recognized in previous precedents, for cases analogous to the one in question." 36 38. In response to the decision of the Supreme Court of Justice, on June 4, 2004, the Superior Court of Justice of Corrientes issued a new ruling in which it partially granted the appeal and ordered the payment worksheet to be redrafted. 37 39. On June 14, 2004, Mr. Boleso filed an extraordinary federal appeal 38 of the decision of June 4, 2004, then on August 16, 2005, he asked that it be expedited. 39 The extraordinary federal appeal was denied by a decision of December 19, 2005. 40 He therefore again filed a motion for reconsideration of dismissal of appeal, which was denied in a decision ordering the 31 Cf. Superior Court of Justice of Corrientes. Judgment 539. Decision of September 28, 1999. Case File No. 7645/91 (evidence file, folio 53). 32 Cf. Document “Filing of Extraordinary Federal Appeal," October 12, 1999 (evidence file, folio 3053 to 3080). Cf. Superior Court of Justice of the Province of Corrientes. Judgment 302/00 of August 8, 2000 (evidence file, folios 56 to 57). 33 34 2079). Cf. Motion for Reconsideration of Dismissal of Appeal, September 1, 2000 (evidence file, folios 2044 to 35 Cf. Filings made on April 16, 2003, and July 8, 2003 (evidence file, folios 59 to 60). 36 Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, Judgment of August 21, 2003 (evidence file, folio 1752). 37 Cf. Superior Court of Justice of Corrientes, Judgment 27/04 of June 4, 2004. Evidence file, folios 62 to 67. 38 Cf. Federal Extraordinary Appeal, June 14, 2004 (evidence file folio 3391 to 3428). Cf. Documents “REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED PROCESSING,” “REITERATED REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED PROCESSING” and “REITERATED PETITION FOR EXPEDITED PROCESSING. REQUEST FOR PREFERENTIAL PROCESSING,” of August 26, 2004, March 2, 2005, April 11, 2005, and August 16, 2005 (evidence file, folios 3441, 3453, 3455 and 3457). 39 40 Cf. Report of the Amparo Department, State Prosecutor's Office, Corrientes, February 16, 2008 (evidence file, folios 74 to 75). 10