correct evaluation of the facts, of the right invoked, or of the evidence offered and that the proceeding extended beyond the 180-day term provided for by Article 31 of Law No. 1084. He added that, months before his removal, he was able to obtain a draft of the judgment that was apparently drafted in the Public Prosecutor's Office, which coincided with the content of the final judgment issued by the JEM. Finally, his claim considered that it did not have independent and impartial judges.52 48. In the appeal, Mr. Nissen Pessolani requested application of article 559 of the Code of Civil Procedure53 to suspend the effects of the judgment issued by the JEM.54 On May 16, 2003, by means of Order No. 552, the Supreme Court established the suspensive effect on the JEM's judgment,55 a decision that was notified to the Prosecutor General on May 19, 2003.56 49. By letter dated April 25, 2003, Mr. Nissen Pessolani extended his action of unconstitutionality against the JEM's ruling No. 03/03 of April 22, 2003, which denied his appeal for clarification and reversal57 (supra para. 41). On May 4, 2004, he filed a new amendment, indicating that he had asked the JEM repeatedly for copies of the news material on which its sanction decision was based but that his request was never addressed.58 50. On June 16, 2004, in Agreement and Judgment No. 915, the Supreme Court of Justice rejected the action of unconstitutionality, arguing that there were no violations to the right to defense, to the principle of congruence, or in the evaluation of evidence.59 With this rejection, the removal of Prosecutor Nissen became final. VI MERITS 51. This case relates to the alleged responsibility of the State for the alleged violation of the rights of Prosecutor Alejandro Nissen Pessolani in the context of a disciplinary proceeding against him by the Jury for the Impeachment of Magistrates that culminated 52 Cf. Action of unconstitutionality filed before the Supreme Court of Justice by Alejandro Nissen Pessolani against Ruling No. 02/03 issued by the JEM on April 22, 2003 (case file of evidence, folios 85 to 119). 53 "Art.559.- Effects of the application. The filing of the application will have suspensive effects in the case of a final judgment or an interlocutory judgment with the force of such. In other cases it shall not have that effect, unless, at the request of a party, the Supreme Court so orders in order to avoid irreparable damage." 54 In the petition he requested "To issue an official letter to the Jury of Impeachment of Magistrates and to the Prosecutor General's Office, to the Chambers of Congress and to the Council of the Magistrature, in order to communicate the suspension of the effects of the Judgment issued, pursuant to Article 559 of the C.P.C." (Action of unconstitutionality filed before the Supreme Court of Justice by Alejandro Nissen Pessolani against the Supreme Court of Justice). No. 02/03 issued by the JEM on April 22, 2003, case file of evidence, folio 118). Cf. Interlocutory Order No. 552 issued by the Supreme Court of Justice on May 16, 2003 in the framework of the Action of Unconstitutionality in the trial: C.P.O. v. Attorney Alejandro Nissen, Criminal Prosecutor of the Capital S/ prosecution (case file of evidence, folios 3969 to 3972). 55 56 Cf. Act of Notification from the Secretariat of the Supreme Court of Justice to the Prosecutor General's Office of May 19, 2003 (case file of evidence, folio 3975). 57 Cf. An extension of unconstitutionality action filed by Alejandro Nissen Pessolani before the Supreme Court of Justice on April 25, 2003 (case file of evidence, folios 121 to 124). Cf. Complaint filed by Alejandro Nissen Pessolani before the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Justice for concealment of evidence used by the J.E.M. on May 4, 2004 (case file of evidence, folio 4113). 58 Cf. Agreement and Judgment No. 915 issued by the Supreme Court of Justice on June 16, 2004 (case file of evidence, folios 126 to 130). 59 16