2) MAKE A NOTE OF, record, and communicate [the decision].13 4. Action of unconstitutionality brought by the alleged victim 53. On April 22, 2003, the alleged victim brought an action of unconstitutionality against Judgment S.D. No. 02/03 of April 7, 2003, alleging that it violated various due process guarantees, the right to work, and the right to employment security.14 In that respect, he indicated that he was convicted for something different than what he had been accused of, and that the JEM had ruled on a matter that had not been raised in the initial complaint, overstepping its judicial authority. 15 He also indicated that the conduct related to the use of the money laundering law, which he addressed in his defense, was not analyzed in the sanction decision.16 He also stated that his right to a defense was violated, given that the jury, in analyzing the conduct laid out by the accused, concluded that his behavior constituted poor performance.17 He also argued that the JEM did not evaluate the facts, either of the right being invoked or the evidence being offered, “as the comments attributed to him were not specified, nor were the media outlets in which these comments were allegedly disseminated.”18 54. Along the same lines, he reported that on April 26, 2002, the President of the JEM requested that the Office of the Prosecutor General of the State send a certified copy of Resolution No. 68, contravening the disciplinary proceeding to his detriment and going beyond the initial complaint that had been filed, since that resolution was later used to determine poor performance of duties.19 In addition, he stated that the proceeding exceeded the 180-day period provided for in Article 31 of Law No. 1084, as the case began on March 18, 2002, and ended on April 7, 2003—in other words, it lasted for 384 days—and that the summary phase took 173 days.20 55. On another matter, he reported that months before his removal, he was able to obtain the draft disciplinary judgment that had been drawn up in the Public Prosecutor’s Office, and so on October 30, 2002, he proceeded to give that document to a notary public; later, he verified that the draft was the same as Judgment S.D. No. 02/03 of April 7, 2003, issued by the JEM.21 Finally, he indicated that he did not have independent, impartial judges, and to that effect he attached press reports that showed conversations allegedly held between the President of the JEM and a representative of the executive branch about his termination.22 56. On April 25, 2003, Mr. Nissen Pessolani amended his action of unconstitutionality challenging JEM Judgment S.D. No. 03/03 of April 22, 2003, which ruled against the petition for clarification that he had filed. Likewise, on May 4, 2004, he filed a new amendment, indicating that he had asked the JEM repeatedly for copies of the news material on which its sanction decision was based and a report on the relevance of that evidence, but that these requests were not addressed.23 57. On June 16, 2004, the Supreme Court rejected the action of unconstitutionality, arguing that: Annex xx, Jury for the Prosecution of Magistrates, Judgment S.D. No. 13/04 of May 13, 2004, Attached to the initial petition of December 27, 2004. 14 Annex xx, Action of unconstitutionality brought before the Supreme Court, April 22, 2003, Attached to the initial petition of December 27, 2004. 15 Annex xx, Action of unconstitutionality brought before the Supreme Court, April 22, 2003, Attached to the initial petition of December 27, 2004. 16 Annex xx, Action of unconstitutionality brought before the Supreme Court, April 22, 2003, Attached to the initial petition of December 27, 2004. 17 Annex xx, Action of unconstitutionality brought before the Supreme Court, April 22, 2003, Attached to the initial petition of December 27, 2004. 18 Annex xx, Action of unconstitutionality brought before the Supreme Court, April 22, 2003, Attached to the initial petition of December 27, 2004. 19 Annex xx, Action of unconstitutionality brought before the Supreme Court, April 22, 2003, Attached to the initial petition of December 27, 2004. 20 Annex xx, Action of unconstitutionality brought before the Supreme Court, April 22, 2003, Attached to the initial petition of December 27, 2004. 21 Annex xx, Action of unconstitutionality brought before the Supreme Court, April 22, 2003, Attached to the initial petition of December 27, 2004. 22 Annex xx, Action of unconstitutionality brought before the Supreme Court, April 22, 2003, Attached to the initial petition of December 27, 2004. 23 Annex xx, Brief to amend the action of unconstitutionality brought before the Supreme Court, May 4, 2004, Attached to the initial petition of December 27, 2004. 13 10