18. He states that, in 2001, the Intervention Government called elections for the posts of governor and vice governor of the Province and that the alleged victim, from his place of detention, ran as a New Party candidate for governor, receiving enough votes to advance to the second round of balloting; he was running against the governing party candidate. 19. He alleges that, on April 18, 2002, the presentation of essential evidence was rejected, to which he responded with a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. 20. He states that, seven days before the final voting round, and after two and a half years in preventive detention, the alleged victim was tried in oral proceedings, on May 8, 2002. He states that the alleged victim was convicted of unlawful administration and sentenced to seven years in prison, and, under a successful civil suit brought by the Municipality, the alleged victim was sentenced to a fine of 8,790,000 Argentine pesos, to be paid to the Municipality. As an additional penalty, he was allegedly disqualified in perpetuity from holding public office. 21. He states that, in 2002, while he was deprived of liberty, the alleged victim ran for the National Senate and won, but had to resign from his post. 22. He states that, on September 11, 2002, after three years and one month of detention, the alleged victim was freed by order of the Superior Court of Justice of the Province (hereinafter “STJ”), considering how long he had spent in preventive detention. 23. He states that he lodged a motion for review, on the grounds of lack of independence and violations of due process, which was denied by the STJ. He then lodged a complaint against the refusal to review, which was rejected by the STJ on April 7, 2004. 24. He states that, on April 24, 2004, he lodged a special federal appeal with the STJ, which in turn referred it to the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (hereinafter “CSJN”); the latter ruled it inadmissible, on February 13, 2007, stating that no sufficient federal grievance existed. He states that, with this decision, of which he was notified on February 16, 2007, all domestic remedies were now exhausted. 25. The petitioner questions the actions of the CSJN in finding his motions inadmissible under the provisions of Article 280 of the Argentine Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure. He argues that the alleged victim's right to appeal and judicial review of the suit brought against him was not respected as stipulated in Article 8.2 of the American Convention. 26. He argues that the alleged victim was judged arbitrarily by the Judge of First Instance, by the members of the Second Chamber, and by the STJ. He questions the composition of the STJ at the time of its ruling on this case, when five judges should have voted, as opposed to the only three who did. He argues that the State violated his right to his natural judge and not to be tried by special tribunals. He maintains in that regard that the STJ is a “covert special tribunal.” 27. He also argues that the judicial authorities took a stand by repeatedly and groundlessly rejecting the series of appeals lodged, by constantly delaying the investigation, and by failing to carry out the various appropriate and useful procedures suggested by the defense. B. Position of the State 28. The State argues that the petition is inadmissible because the criminal trial was conducted in keeping with the guarantees of due judicial process, the required standards of international human rights law, and the American Convention. It argues that the petitioner should not seek to have the IACHR act as a fourth court of review according to the provisions of the American Convention. 3