49. That same provision stipulated that “the decisions of the President or the Jury are not open to any appeal other than an appeal for clarification when the verdict orders the removal of the accused, which must be lodged within 24 hours and the decision on the subject of fees.” 17 However, the State reported that, according to the case law of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, the decisions of the Jury are subject to appeal if a violation of due process in the framework of the proceedings is alleged. C. Proceedings before the Impeachment Jury 50. On June 1, 1999, the Bar Association of San Isidro filed a complaint against the alleged victim with the Council of the Magistracy, alleging the commission of violations envisaged in Article 21 (a), (e), (f), (g), (j), (k) and (l) of Law 8085, the contents of which are transcribed in the preceding paragraphs. 51. As a result, a Jury of Impeachment of Judges and Public Officials of the Province of Buenos Aires was formed and officially constituted on October 5, 1999.18 According to the record, the Impeachment Jury that convicted the alleged victim comprised the President of the Supreme Court of Justice, Guillermo David San Martín; Associate Justices Benito José Aldazábal, Margarita Maroni de Berceteche, Oscar Antonio Huerta, and Jorge Mariezcurrena; and legislators Enrique Pedro Basla, Juan Carlos Correa, Ricardo Luis Alfonsín, and Gustavo Ferrari.19 52. On October 27, 1999, the President of the Jury decided to extend by 15 days the time limit for the preliminary discovery procedure envisaged in Article 28 of the Impeachment Law. 53. On April 13, 2000, the impeachment jury admitted all the testimony and informative evidence offered by the plaintiff. It admitted part of the evidence offered by the alleged victim. In particular, it rejected all the testimony evidence offered "because it was not accompanied by the corresponding questions.” That decision also said that "in light of what is stated on p. 32 overleaf (2nd paragraph) by the plaintiff in terms of not bringing charges under Article 21 (c) of Law 8085 against the accused, it is inadmissible grounds of being manifestly overabundant (Art. 209 Code of Criminal Procedure and Art. 56 of Law 8085).” 20 54. the case.21 In the above decision, the Jury set June 5, 2000, as the date for the public, oral proceedings in 55. The alleged victim filed an application for nullity against the decision to deny certain evidence offered, alleging a series of due process violations in the proceedings before the Impeachment Jury. First, he argued that the successive additional charges violated his right of defense and fair trial guarantees, given that Law 8085 stipulated that the accusation had to contain "all the evidence offered," in spite of which new evidence was incorporated in the aforesaid additional charges. The alleged victim also added that he was denied the possibility of presenting evidence in his defense to elucidate the facts. Second, he said that the extension of the time limit for preliminary discovery was a “clear violation of Law 8085" because the 15-day time limit that the Law establishes was not subject to extension. Third, he said that in the dismissal proceeding he was suspended and was applied a 40% salary reduction in the wake of it.22 17 Law 8085, Rules of Procedure for the Impeachment Judges. 18Annex 1. Decision of June 1, 2000, of the Jury of Impeachment of Judges and Public Officials of the Province of Buenos Aires. Annex 14 to the initial petition of March 4, 2002. 19Annex 2. Vote of the Impeachment Jury of June 15, 2000. Annex 3 to the initial petition of March 4, 2002. Article 21.c of Law 8085 refers to "ineligibility on physical or mental grounds.” Annex XX. Decision of April 13, 2000, of the Jury of Impeachment of Judges and Public Officials of the Province of Buenos Aires. Annex 15 to the initial petition of March 4, 2002. 20 21Annex 3. Decision of April 13, 2000, of the Jury of Impeachment of Judges and Public Officials of the Province of Buenos Aires. Annex 15 to the initial petition of March 4, 2002. 22Annex 4. Special motion for preliminary decision (Planteo de previo y especial pronunciamiento). That the decisions of the Office of Judicial Oversight be declared void. Application for nullity of decision on admissibility of evidence. Suggest serious procedural irregularities and violations of constitutional guarantees, May 18, 2000. Annex 13 to the initial petition of March 4, 2002.The Commission [continues …]