11. On November 25, 2003 Resolution 122 was issued, establishing Rules of Procedure for the impeachment trial of the Justices. This Resolution is on file with the Commission. The petitioner reports that the Rules of Procedure establish that recusals will not be allowed; it grants a time limit of no more than two working days to prepare the defense and collect evidence; and allows a maximum time of three hours to present one’s defense against the charges, among other points. 12. The petitioner emphasizes that the Rules of Procedure adopted in Resolution 122 prevented him from recusing those passing judgment on him, including: a Senator against whom the petitioner had filed a criminal complaint for the crime of extortion; a Senator in a legal investigation whose client was disqualified by the Court as a bidder in a tender process—a matter referred to in the legal grounds for the impeachment proceedings (count 10); a Senator who served as an attorney in the aforementioned trial; and a Senator who is the mother of a Congressman who had filed complaints against him in the House of Representatives. In this regard, the petitioner stated that these Senators had shown manifest prejudice in the proceedings. Furthermore, the petitioner indicates that the impeachment trial in the Senate violated the criteria of subjective impartiality, since a majority of Congress had already formed opinions on the case. 13. On November 27, 2003 the petitioner filed an action challenging the constitutionality of that Resolution, because he found it to violate his procedural rights and his right to a defense. The petitioner states that when he filed the constitutionality challenge, out of the nine Justices on the Supreme Court, two had resigned, four were being put on trial, and the remaining ones disqualified themselves from hearing the case. Thus, the Court did not rule on this action challenging the constitutionality of Resolution 122. The petitioner adds that in April of 2004, a Supreme Court Justice issued an interlocutory order to start the review of the constitutional appeal. However, as of the date of this report, the matter has not yet been decided. In the opinion of the petitioner, this constitutes an unwarranted delay and allows for the filing of this petition with the Commission before the matter has been resolved in the domestic system. 14. The petitioner itemizes each of the twenty articles of impeachment and attaches documents to refute the charges. To clarify the nature of the charges against the petitioner, it is advisable to look at each of the counts in light of the information submitted by the petitioner. Article of impeachment 1, or count 1, a supposed “statement declaring that Supreme Court appointments are for life,” concerns a decision by the Supreme Court upholding the suit that three justices on the Court brought challenging the constitutionality of a 2000 administrative decision whereby the Senate removed them from the bench. The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, ruled that removal of justices serving on the bench of the Supreme Court is governed by Article 261 of the Constitution. Article of impeachment 2, or count 2, a supposed “deviation from the constitutional procedure for confirming judicial magistrates,” concerns a decision in which the Court, sitting en banc, denied an action brought by magistrates challenging the constitutionality of the law establishing the procedure by which judicial magistrates are confirmed. Article of impeachment 3, an alleged “”usurpation of legislative authority in tax-related matters,” refers to an administrative decision in which the Court, sitting en banc, reset the court fee in consultation with the Ministry of Finance. Article of impeachment 4, alleged “interference in the House of Representatives’ exercise of its constitutional functions,” concerns a ruling by the Constitutional Court in which an order from the House of Representatives summoning the Paraguayan Director General of the Yacyretá Binational Entity for questioning was suspended until the action filed was decided. Article of impeachment 5 alleged a “failure to meet procedural deadlines that was highly detrimental to the workings of government.” Its purpose was to charge the members of the Constitutional Chamber with nonobservance of court deadlines, given the backlog of cases in that chamber. 3