"(e) reiterated incompetence or negligence demonstrated in the performance of official duties"; "(f) reiterated failure to perform the official duties inherent to the post", and (k) "reiterated allowance of procedural deadlines to lapse without pronouncing on the matters submitted for a decision or an opinion, which cannot be excused on the grounds of excessive workload or absence of a claim by the interested party".26 C. Appeals filed by Mr. Rico 33. Mr. Rico filed two appeals before the SCJBA and one before the CSJN against the Judgment issued by the Impeachment Jury, which are detailed below: C.1. Special Appeal for Nullity ("REN") before the Supreme Court of the Province of Buenos Aires ("SCJBA") 34. Mr. Rico filed this appeal on July 6, 2000 before the SCJBA. He argued that the principle of legality and due process were violated by the forced framing of the facts into the conducts in Article 20 of the Impeachment Law? 7.3 Does this fact constitute one of the minor offenses envisaged in Article 21 of the Impeachment Law? 7.4 Is the accused responsible for the criminal offense that has been declared proven? 7.5 Is the accused responsible for the minor offense that has been declared proven? 8.1 Is it proven that he refused to cast a vote in cases in which he had a legal obligation to do so? 8.2 Does this fact constitute one of the criminal offenses envisaged in Article 20 of the Impeachment Law? 8.3 Does this fact constitute one of the minor offenses envisaged in Article 21 of the Impeachment Law? 8.4 Is the accused responsible for the criminal offense that has been declared proven? 8.5 Is the accused responsible for the minor offense that has been declared proven? 9.1 Is it proven that he attempted to intervene in a proceeding from which he was excused? 9.2 Does this fact constitute one of the criminal offenses envisaged in Article 20 of the Impeachment Law? 9.3 Does this fact constitute one of the minor offenses envisaged in Article 21 of the Impeachment Law? 9.4 Is the accused responsible for the criminal offense that has been declared proven? 9.5 Is the accused responsible for the minor offense that has been declared proven? 10.1 Is it proven that Dr. Eduardo Rico dispensed preferential treatment in cases in which Dr. C. was involved as counsel? 10.2 Does this fact constitute one of the criminal offenses envisaged in Article 20 of the Impeachment Law? 10.3 Does this fact constitute one of the minor offenses envisaged in Article 21 of the Impeachment Law? 10.4 Is the accused responsible for the criminal offense that has been declared proven? 10.5 Is the accused responsible for the minor offense that has been declared proven? 11.1 Is it proven that he stated that he would not comply with the decision of the Court? 11.2 Does this fact constitute one of the criminal offenses envisaged in Article 20 of the Impeachment Law? 11.3 Does this fact constitute one of the minor offenses envisaged in Article 21 of the Impeachment Law? 11.4 Is the accused responsible for the criminal offense that has been declared proven? 11.5 Is the accused responsible for the minor offense that has been declared proven? 12.1 Is it proven that he has treated employees of this tribunal and lawyers improperly? 12.2 Does this fact constitute one of the criminal offenses envisaged in Article 20 of the Impeachment Law? 12.3 Does this fact constitute one of the minor offenses envisaged in Article 21 of the Impeachment Law? 12.4 Is the accused responsible for the criminal offense that has been declared proven? 12.5 Is the accused responsible for the minor offense that has been declared proven? 13.1 Is it proven that he allowed procedural deadlines for delivering judgments to expire and has issued pronouncements after requests were made for prompt dispatch? 13.2 Does this fact constitute one of the criminal offenses envisaged in Article 20 of the Impeachment Law? 13.3 Does this fact constitute one of the minor offenses envisaged in Article 21 of the Impeachment Law? 13.4 Is the accused responsible for the criminal offense that has been declared proven? 13.5 Is the accused responsible for the minor offense that has been declared proven? 14. Should the accused be dismissed? 15. Should the accused be ordered to pay costs? 16. Should the plaintiff be ordered to pay costs? 24 Cf. Judgment of the Impeachment Jury of June 15, 2000 (merits file, folios 174-176). 25 Cf. Judgment of the Impeachment Jury of June 15, 2000 (merits file, folios 174-176). 26 The Jury considered it proven that he incurred in the following conducts: 1. Refusal to sign the agreement formalizing the change of presidency due to the expiration of the annual term limit legally prescribed; 2. Ordering all proceedings in which Dr. G.R. was involved as counsel to be held in reserve until psychiatrists issued an evaluation of the faculties of the aforesaid professional; 3. Refusal to swear an oath of loyalty to the Buenos Aires flag before the President of the Tribunal; 4. Refusal to cast a vote in cases in which he had a legal obligation to do so; 5. Improper treatment of employees of the tribunal and lawyers; 6. Obstructed the holding of hearings; 7. Requested his peers to recuse themselves and thereby abstain from intervening in those proceedings in which he had been recused; and 8. Allowed procedural deadlines for delivering judgments to expire and has issued pronouncements after requests were made for prompt dispatch. Cf. Judgment of the Impeachment Jury of June 15, 2000 (merits file, folios 174-176), and Votes of the Impeachment Jury of June 15, 2000 (merits file, folios 8 to 173). -11-