(hereinafter, “Federal Supreme Court”) decision in the case of Graffigna Latino, the provision against appealing decisions does not preclude having a judicial review of the dismissal when due process violations are alleged. 15. In this understanding, they claim that Mr. Rico filed a special motion to nullify the Jury’s decision with the Provincial Supreme Court in which: i) he reserved the right to present allegations regarding the unconstitutionality of Article 45 of the Law of Prosecution if the Provincial Supreme Court rejected his appeal; ii) he questioned the evaluation of evidence by the Jury for Prosecution; and iii) he denounced alleged irregularities in the proceeding.2 16. They say that the Provincial Supreme Court did not review the arguments presented and simply rejected the appeal because it considered that this Court lacked competence to make a judicial review of the decisions of the Jury for Prosecution because Article 45 of the Law of Prosecution says such decisions are not appealable. 17. They submit that Mr. Rico challenged that decision by filing a special federal appeal with the Provincial Supreme Court reiterating the arguments presented in his special appeal for nullification and the alleged unconstitutionality of Article 45 of the Law of Prosecution in execution of the reservation he had made in his previous appeal and challenged the ruling of the Provincial Supreme Court that had rejected his appeal for nullification without considering his arguments. 18. They claim that this appeal was rejected on November 29, 2000, because the Provincial Supreme Court understood that the alleged victim’s arguments referred to “discrepancies with the sentencing tribunal” and that it was “only now in the special federal appeal that [he alleged] specifically the unconstitutionality of Article 45 of the [Law of Prosecution], having omitted that challenge in the appeal for nullification presented to [the Provincial Supreme Court], where he had only [made] an ineffective reservation.” 19. They assert that Mr. Rico submitted a complaint motion to the Federal Supreme Court challenging the decision of the Provincial Supreme Court, in which he reiterated the arguments presented in his previous appeals. The Court rejected that motion on August 28, 2001, without even seeing the records of the Jury for Prosecution or the Provincial Supreme Court, simply indicating that the appeal would deal with questions of fact and evidence; that it did not believe that constitutional guarantees had been violated; and that the challenge of unconstitutionality of Article 45 of the Law of Prosecution was not timely made. The petitioners considered the last point an “excuse” for not ruling on the alleged violations. 20. Finally, with respect to the amount of the court costs set by the Jury that Mr. Rico would have to pay, the petitioners submit that he filed an appeal to the Provincial Supreme Court that was rejected. To challenge this decision, Mr. Rico filed a special federal appeal, and when that too was rejected, he filed a complaint motion with the Federal Supreme Court. In a note of December 2005, the petitioners said that the complaint motion had been rejected, thus exhausting the domestic remedies. 21. They assert that the foregoing facts constitute several violations of the American Convention. Among them, they claim that the administrative acts, together with the slander campaign by the Bar Association, violated the right to have his honor respected and his dignity recognized (Article 11 of the Convention). In view of the action of the Jury and the manner in which the proceeding was conducted the State violated his right to an independent and impartial tribunal and defense (8.1 and 8.2.f of the Convention). The lack of legal provisions recognizing the actions in which he was found to have incurred as grounds for dismissal violates the rule of law (article 9 of the Convention), and the lack of an appropriate and effective recourse to challenge those violations was violated contrary to the provisions of Article 25 of the Convention. 2 Among them the illegal extension of the summary information period granted by the President of the Jury; illegal acts committed in the framework of administrative act nº 3001-1517/97; the refusal to admit evidence offered to the Jury that prevented him from conducting his defense; and the arbitrariness of the Jury in accepting and rejecting evidence.