(...) as a rule, the members of the Superior Court are appointed by the Executive Branch with the consent of the Senate (Article 142 of the Constitution of the Province of Corrientes). The power of the Executive Branch to fill vacancies with temporary judges is an exceptional circumstance connected with the appearance of vacancies during the Senate’s recess. Whenever the Senate of the Province is in session, there are no grounds for the appointment of temporary judges. Having the appointment [of three of the judges making up the composition of the Superior Court] made during the Senate session, it requires the aforementioned bodies’ consent; their appointment as temporary judges would only have been possible during the recess.63 46. On April 10, 2003, the Superior Court of Justice issued a resolution setting a hearing for April 14 of that year in order to proceed with the draw to establish the composition of the Court. 64 47. On April 14, 2003, Mr. Romero's defense counsel filed a clarification request with the Superior Court of Justice of Corrientes on the above mention resolution. 65 It requested that the abovementioned three judges be removed and the exclusion of “all the professionals appointed temporarily and therefore unable to join the composition of an impartial tribunal to hear the nullification request” be taken into account at the moment of the draw." 66 48. On May 7, 2003, the President of the Superior Court of Justice of Corrientes issued a resolution rejecting the clarification request, 67 on the grounds that there was no material error or omission requiring amendment of the resolution. 68 On May 14, 2003, defense counsel filed a request for reconsideration with the Superior Court of Justice stating the following: (...) the request for clarification should have been resolved, not by temporary but by the permanent members of the Court, that is, the second instance judges having the accord of the Senate; in this case, the remedy was rejected by the President who lacks such attribution to reject according to Article 24 of the Organic Law. 69 49. On June 2, 2003, the Attorney General of Corrientes submitted a brief to the Superior Court of Justice. 70 He indicated that defense counsel was correct because the resolution issued by the President of the Superior Court of Justice exceeded his authority according to domestic law. 71 In relation to the composition of the said Court, the Attorney General indicated the following: (...) the nullification claim is valid, in as much as it involves the proceedings established in the Provincial Constitution for the appointment of judges, implying a breach of the guarantee to a natural judge and of the principle of inviolability of defense counsel at trial. (...) the exclusion of temporary judges is appropriate. In view of this, the draw should include any 63 Request for Annulment, February 18, 2003. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 64 Clarification Request, April 14, 2003. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 65 Clarification Request, April 14, 2003. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 66 Clarification Request, April 14, 2003. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 67 Resolution 3550 of the Superior Court of Justice of Corrientes, May 7, 2003. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 68 Resolution 3550 of the Superior Court of Justice of Corrientes, May 7, 2003. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 69 Motion for Reconsideration, May 14, 2003. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 10, 2008. 10, 2008. 70 Opinion of the Attorney General of Corrientes to the Superior Court of Justice, June 2, 2003. Annex to Petitioner’s communication dated July 2008. 71 Opinion of the Attorney General of Corrientes to the Superior Court of Justice, June 2, 2003. Annex to Petitioner’s communication dated July 2008. 10