34. On March 12, 2002, C.P.O., who was under investigation for the alleged crime of falsifying official documents before customs to allegedly launder stolen vehicles in Brazil and Argentina, as well as for the crimes of fraud, tax evasion, criminal association and money laundering in case no. 9936, filed a complaint against Mr. Nissen Pessolani for poor performance of his duties. He alleged that the Prosecutor had incurred in the the grounds set out in articles 12 and 14 subparagraphs (b), (g), (n) and (p) of Law No. 1084. Among other arguments, he accused him of concealing acts from the parties, offering procedural benefits in exchange for statements involving third parties, not investigating exculpatory acts, intimidating acts, misapplication of the law and giving information to the media that affected the honor and reputation of the accused parties.18 35. On March 18, 2002, by order signed only by the president of the JEM, the impeachment was deemed to have been initiated,19 and on April 2, 2002, the complaint filed by Mr. C.P.O. against Mr. Nissen Pessolani for alleged poor performance of his duties in office was transferred.20 As a result of this process, on March 26, 2002, the prosecuting party requested that the State Prosecutor General's Office remove Prosecutor Nissen from his position as criminal prosecutor in cases No. 9936 and No. 1534 for an alleged "manifest lack of objectivity on the part of the denounced Prosecutor."21 This request was dismissed on May 22, 2002.22 36. On April 5, 2002, Mr. Nissen Pessolani filed an appeal asking the Court to reverse its decision of March 18, 2002. He argued that the complaint before the JEM did not meet the requirements of the law, since it did not demonstrate any judicial bond having been posted, stating that the only purpose was to remove him from the case.23 The appeal was dismissed by means of an interlocutory judgment issued by the JEM on May 7, 2002.24 37. On April 16, 2002, Mr. Nissen Pessolani answered the lawsuit, denying each of the charges.25 On April 23, 2002, he also denounced a crime of production of a non-authentic document, false report, attempt to frustrate the criminal execution by the party filing the claim (C.P.O.)26; and he accompanied his brief with an opinion made by an expert witness registered at the Supreme Court of Justice. According to this opinion, the 18 Cf. Accusation filed by C.P.O. for malfeasance in office against Public Prosecutor Alejandro Nissen Pessolani before the JEM on March 12, 2002 (case file of evidence, folios 8 to 15). 19 Cf. Providence of the president of the JEM of March 18, 2002 (case file of evidence, folio 3020). Cf. Notification of the JEM signed by its president and addressed to Alejandro Nissen Pessolani of the proceedings "[C.P.O] c/Alejandro Niseen [sic] Pessolani Capital Public Prosecutor for criminal matters s/ impeachment" of April 2, 2002 (case file of evidence, folio 3032). 20 Application submitted by C.P.O. to the State Prosecutor General on March 26, 2022 (case file of evidence, folio 3068). 21 Cf. Order No. 580 of the Prosecutor General's Office rejecting the recusal of the Criminal Prosecutor, Attorney Alejandro Nissen of May 22, 2002 (case file of evidence, folios 3275 to 3277). 22 Cf. Appeal filed by Alejandro Nissen Pessolani before the JEM on April 5, 2002 (case file of evidence, folios 3040 to 3046). 23 24 Cf. Interlocutory Order No. 7/2002 issued by the JEM in the case C.P.O. v. Attorney Alejandro Nissen Pessolani, Criminal Prosecutor of Prosecution Unit No. 10 of the Capital City on May 7, 2002 (case file of evidence, folios 3190 and 3191). 25 Cf. Statement of defense filed by Alejandro Nissen Pessolani before the JEM on April 16, 2002 (case file of evidence, folios 3070 to 3110). 26 Cf. Complaint filed by Alejandro Nissen Pessolani against C.P.O. for the crime of production of nonauthentic document, false denunciation and attempted frustration of criminal execution before the JEM on April 23, 2002 (case file of evidence, folios 3134 to 3138). 12