29. On June 1, 1999, the Bar Association of San Isidro filed a complaint against the alleged victim before the Council of the Magistracy for the commission of violations established in Article 21 (a), (e), (f), (g), (j), (k) and (l) of Law 8085. 30. As a result of the complaint, on October 5, 1999, a Jury of Impeachment was formed to try Mr. Rico.20 Said Jury extended for 15 days the term of the procedure provided for in Article 28 of the Impeachment Law. In addition, it admitted all of the testimony and informative evidence offered by the plaintiff and partially admitted the evidence offered by the alleged victim.21 Mr. Rico filed a motion for nullity against the decision that partially denied the evidence offered, arguing a series of due process violations. In view of this claim, on June 1, 2000, the Impeachment Jury decided to dismiss the motions for nullity filed by the defendant and to continue with the process.22 31. Subsequently, on June 15, 2000, the Impeachment Jury decided to dismiss the alleged victim from his post and declare him ineligible to hold any other judicial office on the grounds that he had incurred in various violations of Law 8085. The content of the judgment notes that the decision process was composed of two parts, the first consisted of an individual vote on matters put to the members of the Jury, which in this case consisted of 16 questions with various sub-questions,23 and the second contains the judgment itself.24 32. Mr. Rico was sanctioned by the Impeachment Jury for "incurring in the grounds envisaged in Article 21, paragraphs (e), (f) and (k) of Law 8085".25 Those grounds refer to: The Impeachment Jury that convicted the alleged victim was comprised of the President of the Supreme Court of Justice, four co-Judges, and four legislators. Cf. Decision of June 1, 2000 of the Jury of Impeachment of Magistrates and Officials of the Province of Buenos Aires (evidence file, folios 3 to 7). 21 Cf. Decision of April 13, 2000 of the Jury of Impeachment of Magistrates and Officials of the Province of Buenos Aires (evidence file, folios 177 to 190). 22 Decision of June 1, 2000 of the Jury of Impeachment of Magistrates and Officials of the Province of Buenos Aires (evidence file, folios 3 to 7). 23 The questions were the following: 1.1 Is it proven that Judge Eduardo Rico refused to sign the agreement formalizing the change of presidency by reason of expiration of the annual term limit legally prescribed in Article 54 of Law 5827, and that he referred to his peers as "de facto President and de facto Vice-President"? 1.2 Does this fact constitute one of the criminal offenses envisaged in Article 20 of the Impeachment Law? 1.3 Does this fact constitute one of the minor offenses envisaged in Article 21 of the Impeachment Law? 1.4 Is the accused responsible for the criminal offense that has been declared proven? 1.5 Is the accused responsible for the minor offense that has been declared proven? 2.1 Is it proven that Dr. Rico obstructed the holding of hearings, with such conduct entailing clear adverse effects to the parties? 2.2 Does this fact constitute one of the criminal offenses envisaged in Article 20 of the Impeachment Law? 2.3 Does this fact constitute one of the minor offenses envisaged in Article 21 of the Impeachment Law? 2.4 Is the accused responsible for the criminal offense that has been declared proven? 2.5 Is the accused responsible for the minor offense that has been declared proven? 3.1 Is it proven that Dr. Rico ordered all proceedings in which G.R. was involved as counsel to be held in reserve until psychiatrists issued an evaluation of the faculties of the aforesaid professional and/or the illicit acts committed by him? 3.2 Does this fact constitute one of the criminal offenses envisaged in Article 20 of the Impeachment Law? 3.3 Does this fact constitute one of the minor offenses envisaged in Article 21 of the Impeachment Law? 3.4 Is the accused responsible for the criminal offense that has been declared proven? 3.5 Is the accused responsible for the minor offense that has been declared proven; 4.1 Is it proven that he prominently displayed in the interior of two vehicles that he used a judiciary permit that he was not authorized to use? 4.2 Does this fact constitute one of the criminal offenses envisaged in Article 20 of the Impeachment Law? 4.3 Does this fact constitute one of the minor offenses envisaged in Article 21 of the Impeachment Law? 4.4 Is the accused responsible for the criminal offense that has been declared proven? 4.5 Is the accused responsible for the minor offense that has been declared proven? 5.1 Is it proven that he refused to swear an oath of loyalty to the Buenos Aires flag before the President of the Tribunal? 5.2 Does this fact constitute one of the criminal offenses envisaged in Article 20 of the Impeachment Law? 5.3 Does this fact constitute one of the minor offenses envisaged in Article 21 of the Impeachment Law? 5.4 Is the accused responsible for the criminal offense that has been declared proven? 5.5 Is the accused responsible for the minor offense that has been declared proven? 6.1 Is it proven that he requested his peers to recuse themselves and thereby abstain from intervening in those proceedings in which he had been recused for "having been found to meet the grounds for recusal and/or for reasons of the utmost decorum and sensitivity”? 6.2 Does this fact constitute one of the criminal offenses envisaged in Article 20 of the Impeachment Law? 6.3 Does this fact constitute one of the minor offenses envisaged in Article 21 of the Impeachment Law? 6.4 Is the accused responsible for the criminal offense that has been declared proven? 6.5 Is the accused responsible for the minor offense that has been declared proven? 7.1 Is it proven that he was repeatedly absent from his place of work without justification? 7.2 Does this fact constitute one of the criminal offenses envisaged 20 -10-