legal judges appointed pursuant to the Constitution, with the exclusion of magistrates appointed temporarily (...)72 50. On June 11, 2003, the Superior Court of Justice of Corrientes issued a resolution rejecting the appeals filed by defense counsel. 73 The Superior Court of Justice indicated the following The claimant alleges that the judges of the Court (Maldonado and Monzón) have not been appointed in accordance with the procedure established by the Constitution of the Province; the appointments were made when the Senate was in session and therefore the Executive Branch was impeded from appointing temporary judges.(...) It is thus indisputable that the Executive Power of the Province has formalized the appointment of three members of the Superior Court of Justice during the Senate’s recess, filling the respective posts with temporary magistrates, and for a limited time. Such a decision constitutes a political act within the competence of that branch of government and therefore outside the jurisdiction of the judicial organs.74 51. Likewise, the Superior Court of Justice ordered the removal of the Prosecutor from this and all consolidated cases. 75 It stated the following: In light of the change of position by the Deputy Prosecutor predicated on false grounds, this surprising attitude seriously affects the impartiality expected from the Public Ministry in the exercise of its jurisdictional functions even if they are not binding on the decisions of the Court.76 52. On June 26, 2003, defense counsel filed an extraordinary appeal with the Superior Court of Justice of Corrientes against the decision of June 11, 2003, 77 alleging that such decision violated various provisions of the Constitution of the Argentine Republic regulating the manner in which local magistrates are appointed. 78 Likewise, on August 7 and 22, 2003, defense counsel requested that the Superior Court of Justice decide on the issue of a new composition.79 53. On April 7, 2004, the Superior Court of Justice of Corrientes issued a judgment whereby (i) it declared the matter relating to the composition of the Superior Court of Justice to be moot; ii) rejected the appeals filed by defense counsel concerning the temporary judges and the appointment of Instructing Magistrate No.1. 80 The Superior Court of Justice offered the following grounds: a) Regarding the nullity of the composition of the Tribunal raised by defense counsel: (...) at the date of appointment of temporary judges ... the legislative branch was in recess, with a self-proclaimed accidental majority of legislators present, without legal capacity to substitute or delegitimize that situation ...Art. 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 72 Opinion of the Attorney General of Corrientes to the Superior Court of Justice, June 2, 2003. Annex to Petitioner’s communication dated July 2008. 73 Decision No. 33 of the Superior Court of Justice, June 11, 2003. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 74 Decision No. 33 of the Superior Court of Justice, June 11, 2003. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 75 Decision No. 33 of the Superior Court of Justice, June 11, 2003. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 76 Decision No. 33 of the Superior Court of Justice, June 11, 2003. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 77 Extraordinary Appeal, June 26, 2003. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 78 Extraordinary Appeal, June 26, 2003. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 79 Request for Annulment, August 7, 2003. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. Appeal for Reconsideration, August 22, 2003. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 80 Judgment No. 23 of the Superior Court of Justice of Corrientes, April 7, 2004. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 11