43. The Commission notes that it does not have the documentation related to the case pursued against the alleged victim. The decision of April 7, 2003, refers to some of the steps taken, statements provided, and documents and evidence submitted by the alleged victim prior to the ruling being issued. 44. On April 7, 2003, the JEM determined that the grounds laid out in subparagraphs (b), (g), (y), and (n) of Article 14 of Law No. 1084 apply to the alleged victim. These referred, respectively, to “repeated and serious noncompliance with the obligations established in the National Constitution, Procedural Codes, and other laws on the exercise of their duties”; “demonstration of a clear-cut bias or ignorance of the law in trials, manifested through repeated acts”; and “[giving] information or [issuing] statements or comments to… third parties about the trials they are handling, when they might affect their processing, or affect the honor or reputation or the presumption of innocence established in the National Constitution; or [sustaining] polemics about ongoing trials.” The JEM thus decided: 1. TO REMOVE lawyer ALEJANDRO NISSEN PESSOLANI from the post of criminal prosecutor of the capital of the Republic, for poor performance of his duties…. 2. COMMUNICATE to the Chambers of Congress, the Supreme Court of Justice, and the Council of Magistrates. 3. IMPOSE costs on the losing party….7 45. The judgment indicated the following: …By his sole decision, the accused took it upon himself to continue intervening in Case No. 9936, failing to heed Resolution No. 68, issued on February 2, 2001, by the Office of the Prosecutor General of the State, which ordered the distribution of cases by rotation and assigned cases to each prosecutorial unit for 30-day periods. This Jury thus finds that the accused has directly and inexcusably met the grounds for removal established in Article 14, subparagraph (b), of Law No. 1.084/97, as his continued and repeated intervention in Case No. 9936 means that he engaged in “repeated and serious noncompliance with the obligations established in the National Constitution, Procedural Codes, and other laws on the exercise of [his] duties…. …That is has been possible to establish, based on the statements made by all the witnesses for the prosecution and the defense, that in fact the accused—throughout the course of the investigation he was handling—has provided information and made comments and statements to the press and third parties that went beyond the sensitive parameters of criminal investigation in its preliminary stage, thus affecting the honor, the reputation, or the presumption of innocence guaranteed to all citizens…. In addition, with the newspaper editions, magnetic tapes (cassettes), and audiovisual tapes (videocassettes) sent to this jury by various written and oral media outlets, it is possible to verify that the accused is dangerously prone to revealing to the public the preliminary steps he is taking in the cases he is responsible for investigating. It is alarming, from this representative of the public prosecution, that this seems to be evident and repeated, and it amounts to an undue tendency to go beyond and preempt procedural steps that are planned or have been taken, publicizing procedures of an exceptional nature that may have been ordered or are being planned, such as searches, surrenders, or technical expertise; testimony he has received or expects to receive; the content of documents placed in his care, etc. He has unreservedly informed the public about such matters, through the mass media…. This jury thus concludes that the accused Criminal Prosecutor has met the grounds for removal established in Article 14 subparagraph (n) of Law No. 1.084/97.8 46. In addition, the Jury for the Prosecution of Magistrates determined the following: 7 8 Annex xx, Jury for the Prosecution, Judgment S.D. N°02/03 of April 7, 2003, Attached to the initial petition of December 27, 2004. Annex xx, Jury for the Prosecution, Judgment S.D. N°02/03 of April 7, 2003, Attached to the initial petition of December 27, 2004. 8