17. Regarding the admissibility requirements of the REF mentioned by the State in its pleadings on preliminary objections, the Court notes that, in accordance with the jurisprudence of the CSJN, "decisions in matters of so-called political trials or impeachment of judges in the provincial sphere, issued by bodies outside the local powers, constitute a justiciable matter when a violation of due process is invoked by the interested party" and that "such decisions do not escape judicial review by those powers nor the subsequent intervention of the Court by means of the extraordinary appeal".8 In turn, the CSJN held that "whoever seeks the exercise of such scrutiny must demonstrate in a clear, unequivocal and conclusive manner, flagrantly, a serious breach to due process norms and the guarantee of due process and legal defense which, also, carries sufficient relevance to vary the fate of the case based on the direct and immediate relationship that the federal issue invoked must have with the subject matter of the trial".9 18. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Court observes that in the instant case, the State did not explain why the remedies filed were manifestly ill-founded. It only referred to what was stated by the SCJBA and the CSJN, indicating that these courts had concluded that the appeal filed was inadmissible because a violation of the rules of due process had not been proven or demonstrated, in accordance with their jurisprudence on the matter (supra para. 13). 19. Consequently, this Court agrees with the Commission when it points out that a pronouncement on the State's argument regarding the preliminary objection would result in answering one of the points of merit in this case, and therefore the State's objection cannot be resolved as a preliminary objection, as it would require an examination of the merits of those issues. In this sense, the Court dismisses the preliminary objection submitted by the State with respect to the admissibility requirement of the REF related to the proof of due process violation. 20. On the other hand, this Court points out, as noted by the SCJBA and the CSJN, that Mr. Rico did not challenge the constitutionality of the ineligibility sanction imposed on him provided for in Law 8085 (infra para. 36) when he filed the REF; he only did so when he filed the Special Appeal for Nullity (infra para. 34). The motion for annulment filed on that occasion was related to the impossibility of appealing the judgment and not to the ancillary penalty imposed on him. To that extent, both the SCJBA and the CSJN indicated that the REF was inadmissible with regard to the unconstitutionality that had been alleged in that second appeal, due to the fact that this allegation was submitted out of time (infra para. 37). Therefore, this Court finds that the argument related to the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies is admissible on this point only, since the State never had the possibility of effectively remedying the alleged violations regarding the non-appealability of the judgment or the ancillary penalty imposed on Mr. Rico. In view of the foregoing, the Court declares the preliminary objection submitted by the State in relation to the motion for annulment related to the alleged unconstitutionality of Law 8085 to be admissible. CSJN. Case of "Graffigna Latino" (Judgments: 308:961). Case referenced by the Representatives and the State in their main briefs. 9 CSJN. Cases "Paredes, Eduardo y Pessoa, Nelson" (Judgments: 329:3027); "Acuña" (Judgments: 328:3148); "De la Cruz" (Judgments: 331:810); "Rodríguez" (Judgments: 331:2156); "Rojas" (Judgments: 331:2195); "Trova" (Judgments: 332:2504); cases CSJ936/20.09 (45-A) /CS1 "Agente Fiscal s/ solicita instrucción de sumario", of June 1, 2010; "Parrilli" (Judgments: 335:1779) and CSJ 1070/2012 (48-B)/CS1 "Bordón, Miguel Ángel s/causa n°69115/10", judgment of August 27, 2013 and citations therein); "Fiscal de Estado Guilleimo H. De Sanctis and another" (Judgments: 339:1048); "Procurador General Corte Suprema de Justicia Dr. Jorge Alberto Barraguirre" (Judgments: 339:1463 and citations therein). Likewise, see "Ramírez, Ramón Francisco Tomás s/ acusación por mal desempeño del cargo de juez de instrucción y correccional de la ciudad de Saladas - Pcia. de Corrientes" of May 8, 2018. Case referenced by the Representatives and the State in their main briefs. 8 -6-