Prosecutor Nissen continued investigating it. The intervention of Prosecutor Nissen Pessolani in this case was confirmed after the fact by means of Order No. 112 of February 13, 2001.14 B.2. Case No. 9936 "[L.S.] et al. s/ Reduction, Smuggling, Reproduction and Use of Official Documents with False Contents, Fraud, Criminal Association, and Money Laundering." 31. In the framework of the investigation of case no. 1534 of "[B.V.] et al. on charges of tax evasion, exaction and other offenses," new data on vehicle trafficking arose, which led the judge in the case to order an itemization and return of the indictment document. As a result, case no. 9336 entitled "[L.S.] et al. s/ Reduction, Smuggling, Reproduction and Use of Official Documents with False Contents, Swindling, Criminal Association and Money Laundering" in which C.P.O., was accused, among others. Prosecutor Nissen Pessolani continued to investigate this new case. Thus, the indictment against C.P.O. was issued by the Prosecutor on January 3, 2002. The assignment of this case is a controverted fact. According to the State, based, among other elements, on the statement of Oscar Germán Latorre, "if the Prosecutor Alejandro Nissen had acted correctly, he should have filed the complaint for this new fact at the reception desk and it should have been assigned to the Criminal Prosecution Unit on duty."15 32. In accordance with Order No. 68 of February 2, 2001, the Prosecutor General's Office established a new case distribution system for the prosecutorial units for punishable acts for the City of Asuncion as of February 5, 2001. Previously, cases were assigned through a double system, both by rotation and randomly. With Order No. 68 it was determined that all reports and complaints should enter through the Public Prosecutor's Office reception desk and should be distributed by rotation to the units of the Public Prosecutor's Office. The shift system involved 30-day periods per Prosecution Unit. Within this period, "the members of the unit would go on duty successively for five days of duty until the indicated period was completed."16 33. According to the representatives' allegations, the intervention of Prosecutor Pessolani in the case was legitimized by means of the order issued by the State Prosecutor General's Office No. 580 of May 22, 2002, rejecting a challenge filed by C.P.O. against Prosecutor Nissen Pessolani.17 During the public hearing, the alleged victim testified that between the publication of Order No. 68 and Order No. 580, he continued to carry out investigative acts within the case. C. Disciplinary proceedings against Prosecutor Nissen Pessolani Cf. Witness statement rendered before a notary public by Oscar Germán Latorre Cañete on April 29, 2022 (case file of evidence, folio 4209). According to Mr. Nissen Pessolani's statement at the public hearing, this investigation was carried out by means of a special authorization from the then State Prosecutor General, A.C.V., who gave him permission to carry it out and to subsequently enter it through the reception desk. 14 Witness statement rendered before a notary public by Oscar Germán Latorre Cañete on April 29, 2022 (case file of evidence, folio 4213). 15 Cf. Order No. 68 of the Prosecutor General's Office of February 2, 2001, establishing a new case distribution system for the prosecutorial units for common punishable acts for the city of Asunción (case file of evidence, folios 3192 to 3198). Although this resolution established that the new shift system would be applied according to a calendar that took into account only the Prosecutor Units No. 1 to No. 8, the alleged victim clarified during the public hearing that this system was also applied to his Prosecutor Unit (No. 10). 16 17 Cf. Order No. 580 issued by the Prosecutor General's Office on May 22, 2002 (case file of evidence, folios 3275 to 3277). 11