B. Facts of the case 1. Alejandro Nissen Pessolani’s appointment and the investigations undertaken 38. The petitioner indicated that Mr. Nissen Pessolani was designated Criminal Prosecutor of the Public Prosecutor’s Office by the Council of Magistrates, by means of Certified Document No. 700 of November 4, 1999.2 39. The alleged victim indicated that as part of his duties, he was investigating cases involving acts of corruption, for example the case of a BMW automobile that was stolen in Brazil and later acquired by the thenPresident of Paraguay; the investigation of the former head of the General Customs Office and other high-level officials for illicit enrichment; and other cases related to luxury vehicles that were being stolen in Brazil and later registered under the name of authorities or relatives of Paraguayan politicians.3 2. First disciplinary case brought against the alleged victim 40. On March 12, 2002, Cristian Paolo Ortiz lodged a complaint with the Prosecutor General’s Office against the alleged victim for poor performance of duties, citing grounds established in Articles 12 and 14, subparagraphs (b), (g), (n), and (p), of Law No. 1084, the contents of which were transcribed in paragraphs.4 41. Specifically, the complaint indicated that: The prosecutor has carried out his investigation in Case 9936 by means of acts that border on criminal illegality, by offering benefits related to procedures (abbreviated proceedings, suspension of the case) and/or penalties (lighter punishment) in exchange for some statement that would involve third parties, without regard for whether it is true…. That in the steps he took, Prosecutor Nissen never investigated exculpatory facts; despite having the obligation under this circumstance, he shows such a serious lack of objectivity that in reference to the accused he refers to…persons who have swindled the country (Notice of detention of the accused Lucio Sánchez, request for precautionary measure, Order No. 23 of February 7, 2002)…. The use of acts of intimidation such as the threat of higher penalties for not cooperating with him also represents a lack of objectivity…. He applies the money laundering law where it is not appropriate. This can be noted in the “collaborations.” In the abbreviated proceeding and at the start of the statements, which constitutes recurring ignorance in the application of laws…. The information and statements provided by Prosecutor Alejandro Nissen with regard to Cases 9936 and 1534 are innumerable; the particulars can be corroborated simply by requesting newspaper editions and tapes from television stations, in all cases the information affects the honor, the reputation, the presumption of innocence both of me personally, as well as the others who are accused….”5 42. As the records in the case file indicate, the Jury for the Prosecution that signed the sanction decision was made up of associate justices Marcelino Gauto Bejarano, Luis Caballero Krauer, Esteban Samaniego Aleman, Francisco José de Vargas, Luis Mendoza Correa, and Antonio Fretes.6 Annex xx, Initial petition of December 27, 2004. Annex xx, Press reports: Diario Color ABC, March 31, 2003; Diario Noticias Judiciales, April 13, 2003; Diario Color ABC, April 8, 2004, Attached to the initial petition of December 27, 2004. 4 Annex xx, Complaint against Mr. Alejandro Nissen Pessolani, March 12, 2002, Attached to the initial petition of December 27, 2004. 5 Annex xx, Complaint against Mr. Alejandro Nissen Pessolani, March 12, 2002, Attached to the initial petition of December 27, 2004. 6 Annex xx, Jury for the Prosecution, Resolution of April 7, 2003, Attached to the initial petition of December 27, 2004. 2 3 7