Justice of the Peace Court No. 2. 31. On June 18, 1991, a lower court judge ruled not to grant the protection requested. 19 This decision was appealed by Mr. Boleso on June 26, 1991. 20 The appeal was denied in its entirety on August 7, 1992, by judgment 293 of the Superior Court of Justice of the Province of Corrientes. 21 The judgment established as follows: The lack of adequate adjustments, of which the judge a-quo speaks, is precisely the omission causing violation of the constitution by failing to respect the inviolability of judges' salaries. The omission vis-à-vis a constitutional norm such as Article 143 amounts to the kind of clearly arbitrary and illegal omission that authorizes the writ of amparo (law 2903) in its article 1[...]. 22 32. On August 28, 1992, the Province of Corrientes filed an extraordinary federal appeal on the grounds that the judgment 293, "dispense[d] with applicable law without valid rationale." 23 During the appeal process, Mr. Boleso presented a series of requests for processing of his case. 24 The appeal was rejected on August 4, 1997, by the Superior Court of Justice of the Province of Corrientes. 25 33. In October 1997, Mr. Boleso sought execution of the judgment. In this regard, he drew up a payment schedule, 26 which was challenged by the provincial state. 27 The challenge was rejected by decision of December 11, 1997. 28 The provincial state appealed this decision. 29 34. On September 28, 1999, the Superior Court of Justice of Corrientes overturned the judgment of August 7, 1992. 30 It found that the judgment was merely declaratory and that there was no payment order: [...] The final judgment was a declaratory one. Effectively, the operative part of the judgment, pages 320-324, establishes the following in point 2: To grant the writ of amparo set forth in pages 3-5 by establishing that this action has demonstrated the existence of a true and enforceable right [...] 19 Cf. Justice of the Peace Court No. 2, Corrientes. Judgment No. 15/91 of June 18, 1991 (evidence file, folios 7 to 14 and 2699 to 2706). 20 Cf. Appeal filed by Héctor Hugo Boleso's attorney of June 26, 1991 (evidence file, folios 2707 to 2708). Cf. Superior Court of Justice of the Province of Corrientes. Judgment 293/92 of August 7, 1992. Case File No. 7645/91 (evidence file, folios 16 to 26). 21 22 Superior Court of Justice of the Province of Corrientes. Judgment 293/92 of August 7, 1992. Case File No. 7645/91 (evidence file, folio 17). 23 Cf. Federal Extraordinary Appeal filed on August 28, 1992, by the State of the Province of Corrientes (evidence file, folios 28 to 35). 24 Cf. Filings made on November 29, 1993, May 9, 1994, and February 20, 1995 (evidence file, folios 37 to 39 and 2172) 25 Cf. Superior Court of Justice of Corrientes. Resolution No. 755 dated August 4, 1997. Case File No. 7645/91 (evidence file, folios 41 to 47). 26 2928). 27 Cf. Document "Practical Principle and Interest Worksheet. Requested" October 9, 1997 (evidence file, folio Cf. Document “Settlement Appeal," November 12, 1997 (evidence file, folios 2931 to 2934). Cf. Superior Court of Justice of the Province of Corrientes. Decision No. 543 of December 11, 1997 (evidence file, folio 49). 28 29 Cf. Document “Annulment Petition," February 5, 1998 (evidence file, folio 2947). In the judgment, the court held that "it is not accurate that the appeal of the worksheet referred exclusively to a lack of clarity for the settlement [...]. In addition to the lack of clarity, it argued that it did not correlate to the judgment and the body executing the settlement lacked the authority to do so in the absence of prior procedural actions.” Cf. Superior Court of Justice of Corrientes. Judgment 539. Decision of September 28, 1999. Case File No. 7645/91 (evidence file, folio 51). 30 9