on the part of the State and the practice of irregularities. He asks the IACHR to reject any other submission from the State that does not come from the Human Rights Office of the Public Prosecutor’s Office. B. Position of the State 23. The State indicates that on March 12, 2002, Cristian Paolo Ortiz lodged a formal charge and requested prosecution of the petitioner in his capacity as Criminal Prosecutor, on the grounds established in Article 14 of Law No. 1084/97 for poor performance of his duties, specifically as noted in subparagraphs b, g, m, and p.2 24. It points out that on March 18, 2002, the JEM deemed the complainant notified in the stated capacity, added the legal instruments presented, deemed the petitioner’s prosecution instituted, and transmitted the formal charge to the accused, summoning him to reply within the statutory time frame. 25. It indicates that on April 16, 2002, the petitioner responded to the formal charge and, on May 22, 2002, the Jury decided to consider it replied to, added the legal documents presented, and since some disputed facts had to be proven, ordered the opening of the evidentiary stage. It adds that it admitted the documentary evidence in the form of reports and testimony offered by the complainant party as well as evidence in the form of legal instruments, testimony, confessions, and reports offered by the defense. 26. It points out that a public oral hearing was held on August 13, 2002. It indicates that on August 29, 2002, the JEM added the transcript of the evidentiary hearing, which was transmitted to the parties so that they might present their respective arguments—conclusions that were presented and added on September 10 of the same year, and ordered the closure of proceedings for judgment. 27. It contends that on April 7, 2003, the JEM decided to remove the petitioner from his position as Criminal Prosecutor, for poor performance of his duties, in accordance with subparagraphs b, g, and n3 of Article 14 of Law 1084/97, communicating the decision to the Chambers of the National Congress, the CSJ, and the Council of Magistrates. It indicates that the JEM considered that Prosecutor Nissen had told the complainant who had been under investigation that “in the event he does not cooperate there is the possibility of a 10-year sentence,” that he allegedly “provided information and made comments and declarations to the press and third parties that went beyond the sensitive parameters of criminal investigation in its preliminary stage,” and that he allegedly illegally ordered “an expert from the Public Prosecutor’s Office to do his work in the context of a proceeding” conducted before the JEM, which would be expert involvement outside of a criminal trial or proceeding for which he was responsible. 28. It indicates that on April 10, 2003, the petitioner filed a petition for clarification and reversal of the decision of April 7, 2003, asking that the court “in the exercise of its prerogative, declare null and void the communications transmitted in relation to said resolution.” Article 14.-The following constitutes poor performance of duties warranting the removal from office of judicial magistrates, prosecutors, public prosecutors, and justices of the peace: […]; b) repeated and serious noncompliance with the obligations established in the National Constitution, Procedural Codes, and other laws on the exercise of their duties; […]; g) demonstration of a clear-cut bias or ignorance of the law in trials, manifested through repeated acts; […]; m) participation in public demonstrations when such acts might seriously and gravely jeopardize their independence or impartiality, as well as the use of party emblems and insignia; […]; p) receipt of gifts or acceptance of promises or other benefits, directly or indirectly, from persons who in any way may play a role or have an interest in the proceedings they are handling; […]. 3Article 14.-The following constitutes poor performance of duties warranting the removal from office of judicial magistrates, prosecutors, public prosecutors, and justices of the peace: n) give information or issue declarations or comments to third parties about the trials they are handling, when they might affect their processing, or affect the honor or reputation or the presumption of innocence established in the National Constitution; or sustain polemics about ongoing trials; 2