That for each of the arguments raised above, this Jury believes that the grounds for removal are clearly demonstrated at trial. But we should direct our attention to some “procedural steps taken by the accused” during this very proceeding that also constitute grounds for removal. To that end, we refer to pages 76 to 81 of the record, where an expert opinion has been added, prepared by Miguel Angel Lemir, Expert of the Public Prosecutor’s Office…. Expert Lemir was ordered to perform this task by Criminal Prosecutor Nissen…in fact, the accused was able to obtain a photocopy of a document presented by his accuser to this Jury and, understanding that the signature included on that document is not authenticated, per se, he availed himself of an Expert from the Public Prosecutor’s Office and ordered him to perform that task. At no time did the accused report that situation to this Jury, which by law is in charge of his prosecution. What is very serious is that Alejandro Nissen Pessolani never reported his suspicion about his accuser’s signature to “this Jury”; much less did he request that experts be appointed to determine whether or not the document was authentic. Likewise, that by “ordering” an expert from the Public Prosecutor’s Office to perform his task in the context of “a proceeding before this Jury,” the accused has arrogated to himself powers that belong solely to the Jury for the Prosecution of Magistrates. He has proceeded to order an expert opinion outside a preexisting criminal investigation for which he is responsible. His unawareness of or noncompliance with the law leads us to conclude that the accused, by his own voluntary and spontaneous actions, has met the grounds for removal established in Article 14, subparagraph (g), of Law No. 1.084/97 ….9 47. The alleged victim filed a petition for clarification of the sanction decision. The Commission does not have any information about that petition. 48. On April 22, 2003, the JEM decided not to grant the petition for clarification, finding that “the preconditions required for allowing the appeal did not exist, given that the appellant was requesting clarification of matters that were clearly laid out in Article 31 of Law No. 1084.”10 3. Second complaint filed against the alleged victim 49. On April 4, 2003, Mr. Luis Humberto Arévalo, representing Silverio Dure Velázquez and Matilde Melgarejo de Dure, filed a complaint against the alleged victim for poor performance of duties in Case No. 14069, alleging the grounds established in subparagraphs (b), (c), (g), and (n) of Article 14 of Law No. 1084.11 50. On April 29, 2004, the JEM decided to acquit the alleged victim, stating that “the existence of devious conduct or prohibited or erroneous action had not been determined” in the case in question.12 51. The alleged victim brought a petition for clarification of the judgment of April 29, 2004. The Commission does not have any information about that petition. 52. On May 13, 2004, the JEM ruled on the petition for clarification and indicated that the facts in place clearly showed that each party should bear its own costs. It thus decided: 1) TO GRANT the petition for clarification presented by Lawyer Alejandro Nissen Pessolani, Criminal Prosecutor in the Capital, and as a result, order that S.D. No. 11/04 of April 29, 2004, be amended, in the sense that each party should bear its own costs. Annex xx, Jury for the Prosecution, Judgment S.D. No. 02/03 of April 7, 2003, Attached to the initial petition of December 27, 2004. Annex xx, Jury for the Prosecution, Judgment S.D. No. 03/03 of April 22, 2003, Attached to the State’s brief of October 11, 2006. 11 Annex xx, Complaint of April 4, 2003, presented to the Jury for the Prosecution of Magistrates, Attached to the initial petition of December 27, 2004. 12 Annex xx, Jury for the Prosecution of Magistrates, Judgment S.D. No. 11/04 of April 29, 2004, Attached to the initial petition of December 27, 2004. 9 10 9