provided in Law 8085, the unconstitutionality of the sanction of ineligibility to hold another judicial position, and the denial of two testimonies. 35. On August 30, 2000, the SCJBA dismissed the appeal, arguing that the Jury created by Article 182 of said Constitution for the impeachment of judges is not an ordinary judicial court lower than the Supreme Court, but a special and independent body that exercises powers of a political nature related to the responsibility of those who are subject to it, which escapes judicial oversight. C.2. Federal extraordinary appeal ("REF") before the Supreme Court of the Province of Buenos Aires ("SCJBA") 36. On September 22, 2000, Mr. Rico filed this appeal before the SCJBA. He reiterated that the decision of the Impeachment Jury violated due process and referred to the unconstitutionality of Law 8085, which denies the possibility of review of the rulings by impeachment juries. 37. On November 29, 2000, the SCJBA denied the federal appeal filed in all its aspects, holding that the appeal did not meet the minimum requirements. In particular, it indicated that "it only reflects his personal disagreement with [the criteria] of the sentencing court". Regarding the alleged unconstitutionality, it found that this argument had not been alleged in the special appeal for nullity filed previously (supra para. 34). C.3. Motion for reconsideration of dismissal of appeal before the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation ("CSJN") 38. This appeal was filed on February 7, 2001 before the CSJN in response to the denial of the REF. In this appeal, the alleged victim argued that the Federal extraordinary appeal before the SCJBA had been "wrongly denied". He also reiterated his request for a declaration of unconstitutionality of Article 45 of Law 8085 and reiterated that he suffered a series of due process violations, such as the refusal to receive evidence in his defense. 39. The appeal was dismissed by the CSJN, arguing that the appellant had not demonstrated the violation of Article 18 of the National Constitution. Regarding the request for unconstitutionality, the Court reiterated that Mr. Rico had omitted to formulate such unconstitutionality in the first appeal for nullity. Consequently, it considered that the "federal question is belated insofar as the grievance invoked is due to the appellant's discretionary conduct". Regarding the allegations related to the grievances caused by the evaluation of the evidence by the Impeachment Jury, the CSJN referred to the "procedural and local nature of the issue raised and the lack of clear, unequivocal and conclusive demonstration of the impairment of constitutional guarantees". VII. MERITS 40. In the instant case, the Court must analyze the international responsibility of the State for the alleged violation of various conventional rights in relation to the process of impeachment of Mr. Eduardo Rico by an Impeachment Jury. According to the allegations, the State violated the principles of judicial independence, impartiality, the right to appeal the decision, the right to defense, the right to have duly motivated decisions, the principle of legality, the right to judicial protection and the right to participate in government. Next, the Court will consider and resolve the merits of the dispute. To do so, it will analyze the alleged -12-