15. Article of impeachment 6 alleges an “attempt to thwart the authority of the legislative branch in order to keep Chamber 2 of the Court of Accounts functioning.” This charge concerns the Constitutional Chamber’s decision to suspend the effects of a law whose constitutionality was being challenged, until such time as the suit filed in the matter was decided. The suit concerned the National Congress’ decision to formally revoke the authority of the Court of Accounts, Chamber 2, to oversee the investment accounts in the General Budget of Expenditures of the Nation. The charge in article of impeachment 7 is a supposed “usurpation of constitutional authorities expressly reserved for the legislative branch of government, thereby seriously upsetting the balance of power and constituting a punishable offense against the constitutional system.” The charge asserts that the Supreme Court, sitting en banc, had upheld a constitutionality challenge with effects erga omnes, even though rulings of the Court are supposed to affect only the parties to the case. Article of impeachment 8 alleges a “reinterpretation of a principle of the code of criminal procedure.” This is in reference to the Criminal Chamber’s interpretation of a precept of the Criminal Code. Article of impeachment 9, a supposed “unlawful appropriation of two aircraft confiscated from a drug trafficker,” concerns a decision in which the Supreme Court named itself as the depository of the confiscated aircraft. 16. Article of impeachment 10, titled the “bidding on the north tower of the Palace of Justice,” concerns a decision by the Court, sitting en banc, to declare the bidding deserted for failure to comply with the bidding specifications and conditions and the administrative standards in force on the subject of bidding. Article of impeachment 11, “egregious and widespread cases of nepotism,” alleges irresponsible and arbitrary management of human resources in the judicial branch. Article of impeachment 12, the “outrageous promotion of Judge Juan Carlos Paredes,” alleges that the judge in question had purportedly been involved in a drug trafficking case and that instead of being removed from the bench, he was allegedly rewarded with a promotion to the Court of Appeals. Article of impeachment 13, a supposed “self awarded salary increase,” alleges that the Supreme Court had given itself a salary increase. 17. Article 14, “Case of Mundy Recepciones v Itaipú Binational,” challenged the speed with which the case was decided, and the Constitutional Chamber’s decision to deny a constitutionality challenge brought by Itaipú Binational. Article 15, the “Case of District Attorney Alejandro Nissen,” concerned a decision in which the Court, sitting en banc, had decided, at the request of the Trial Jury for Magistrates, to suspend the Prosecutor for the duration of his trial. Article of impeachment 16, “complaints of administrative irregularities in the school of veterinary sciences,” refers to influence peddling in a case that the Supreme Court was not hearing but that involved the wife of the President of the Court, while practicing the legal profession. Article of impeachment 17, supposed “influence peddling in the case of Magu S.R.L,” also concerns a criminal case in which the wife of the President of the Court again served as an attorney, even though the case was lost on appeal and his wife allegedly had no role in the case filed in the administrative-contentious jurisdiction. Article of impeachment 18, “influence peddling in the Municipality of San Lorenzo trial,” alleges that the petitioner used his influence or connections in a case against a municipal mayor. The petitioner argues that at the time the articles of impeachment were brought, the case against the mayor was still in the preliminary phase, so that the petitioner could hardly have brought any influence to bear either for or against the mayor’s case. Article of impeachment 19, “complaint from Judge Alfredo Romero,” alleges that a criminal court judge was being pressured to resign. Lastly, article of impeachment 20, supposed “unlawful enrichment,” alleged that the “ostentatious” residence of the President of the Court was significant evidence that he had engaged in unlawful enrichment, a charge allegedly disproved by sworn statements made before the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic. 4