2003, he brought an action of unconstitutionality with the Supreme Court of Justice (hereinafter “CSJ”) to have the JEM’s judgment suspended. 15. He states that although the judgment against him was not final, on April 28, 2003, an Interim Prosecutor for Criminal Unit No. 10 was appointed, who withdrew the investigations he had been handling. He claims that the process took place without his participation or that of the staff members of the unit, which was permanently dismantled. He alleges that the unit was searched by about 12 staff members of the Prosecutor General’s Office who went off with all the files. He indicates that he appealed the decision on the appointment, in order to continue the investigations, but that he did not receive any response from the FGE to this or other requests. 16. He indicates that on May 16, 2003, the CSJ issued Interlocutory Decree No. 552, deciding to suspend the effects of the JEM’s judgment until the Court issued its ruling on the action of unconstitutionality. The petitioner states that on the same day he resumed his functions as a prosecutor. 17. He points out that the Dures, who were being investigated by the petitioner for wrongful acts against the public treasury, lodged the second complaint against him, in April 2003, for poor performance owing to a clear-cut bias. He states that on May 16, 2003, a few hours after having resumed his functions, the JEM decided to grant the petition and suspend him. He alleges that the JEM granted the petition in view of the suspension of the effects of judgment No. 2/03. In this regard, he claims that this decision violated the principle of the presumption of innocence and of due process, since it prevented him from taking part in the proceeding. 18. He points out that in response to the JEM’s request to suspend him in this second case, on May 20, 2003, the CSJ decided that the petitioner was to be suspended without pay until the final ruling was made. He maintains that “the pressure of the press and the indignation of the citizenry were immediate.” Consequently, the CSJ retracted its decision in part and ordered that he be paid 50 percent of his salary. He indicates that this situation affected his family for a year, until a nine-member jury acquitted him though final judgment No. 11-04 of April 29, 2004. He alleges that he filed a petition for clarification so that the JEM would rule on costs and that, on May 13, 2004, it decided that “each party should bear its own costs.” 19. He states that the action of unconstitutionality against Judgment No. 2/03 of the JEM was rejected on June 16, 2004, through Agreement and Judgment No. 915 of the CSJ. He claims that the only action that can be brought against a JEM judgment under domestic law is an action of unconstitutionality; therefore he considers that domestic remedies have been exhausted. 20. He maintains that individuals he investigated for corruption filed two other petitions against him for compensation for damages, in which the Civil and Commercial Courts of First Instance rejected the objections raised by the petitioner. He claims the country was confronted with “an acute institutional crisis that allows the alleged matters to take place.” 21. The petitioner argues that in the second proceeding (initiated by the Dures) his salary was withheld in the institution by order of the FGE, and therefore that on October 20, 2006, he asked the Office of the Public Prosecutor for the earnings that had been withheld despite his acquittal, and that he did not receive any response. He maintains that the State has violated the right of compensation for a miscarriage of justice envisaged in Article 10 of the American Convention. In response to the State’s argument that no administrative proceeding or demand for compensation for damages had been initiated (see III B infra), he replied that a verdict acquitting him had been reached and that said response by the State shows its “obstructionist spirit … in failing to recognize the error it has committed.” 22. In addition, the petitioner complained that the report drawn up by the Human Rights Office of the Public Prosecutor’s Office and transmitted to the Human Rights Office of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs through Note 116 of September 18, 2006, 1 was replaced by another prepared by the Office of the Prosecutor General of the Nation, which was the response the State submitted to the IACHR. He denounced a double ruling 1 The IACHR contacted the petitioner through a note dated October 6, 2008, and informed him that said report was not in the IACHR file.