administration when he was serving as Mayor of the City of Corrientes. He maintains that the alleged victim did not commit the offenses of which he was accused. 9. He states that, on March 4, 1999, the Judge of First Instance ordered formal proceedings in the case. In addition, on August 2, 1999, the Province lodged, against the alleged victim, a criminal complaint and a civil suit for damages. 10. The petitioner states that, on August 3, 1999, an arrest warrant was issued for the alleged victim. He says the alleged victim was arbitrarily and unlawfully deprived of his liberty. He states that, on October 5, 1999, an indictment was issued against the alleged victim and the other defendants for offenses of graft, abuse of authority, and failure to perform the duties of public servants; misuse of public funds; and fraud against the public administration. The same document allegedly ordered the preventive detention of the alleged victim. 11. He alleges that the Court of the First Examining Magistrate of Corrientes prematurely imprisoned the alleged victim without a trial. He affirms that Mr. Raúl Romero Feris was deprived of his liberty because of pressure on the magistrates from the coalition government. 12. With respect to the First Examining Magistrate, the petitioner claims that he was designated in an irregular, wrongful, and politicized manner by the Interim Governor of the Province, who, because he was also Senator of the Province, approved the appointment. He states that the designated judge placed ninth in the competition for the post but was still invested, passing over the eight better-qualified candidates. He alleges therefore that the right to one's natural judge was violated. He argues that the appointment of that judge was carried out by his political adversaries in the coalition government and concludes therefore that judicial impartiality was lacking. 13. Once the investigations phase was completed, the case was placed before the Second Criminal Chamber of the First Judicial District of the Province (hereinafter “Second Chamber”). He states that the alleged victim was judged by chamber members designated by the Federal Auditor “by special appointment,” not as provided in Article 142 of the Provincial Constitution, under which “they are appointed by the Executive with Senate approval.” He says the defense challenged the composition of this tribunal, rejecting the designated judges and calling it invalid. He says that this motion was rejected 'in limine' by the same Chamber. 14. He states that, on February 19, 2001, he lodged a motion for dismissal with a subsidiary appeal, which was rejected on May 31, 2001, by the Second Chamber. He states that, on June 14, 2001, he lodged an appeal in cassation, requesting that the actions be voided, on the grounds that the grievances described constituted a non-actionable political matter. He states that this motion was denied in Ruling No. 22, on June 15, 2001, by the same Chamber. 15. The petitioner questions the independence and impartiality of these judges and does not consider them his natural judges. He alleges that the magistrates were biased and prejudiced. He states that one of the magistrates of the Second Chamber, after condemning the alleged victim, sent an electronic message to various addressees--including the Argentine Senate--in which he referred to the ruling issued and to the alleged victim in offensive and discrediting terms, calling him a “sinister figure” and claiming he was responsible for "plunging this Province into poverty and indigence.” 16. He alleges that the State violated the term of two years of preventive detention provided for in Act 24.390, which is, in turn, a violation of Article 7 of the American Convention. He states that, in that light, the petitioner submitted a motion for release on behalf of the alleged victim. 17. Information submitted by the petitioner indicates that, on August 1, 2001, the Court of the First Examining Magistrate extended the alleged victim's preventive detention in view of the case's particular circumstances, deeming it a reasonable period of detention when taking into account the 52 cases in which the alleged victim was indicted. 2