procedure established by the Provincial Constitution violates the guarantee of the natural judge and the principle of inviolability of defense counsel at trial (...)139. 82. On April 10, 2003, due to Judge Carlos José Simonelli’s disqualification, the Superior Court of Justice issued a resolution ordering that a "draw for the composition of the Superior Court of Justice"140 be made. On April 14, 2003, defense counsel filed a clarification motion in the following terms: (...) the hearing was arranged (...) in order to carry out the draw for the composition of the Superior Court, in view of Dr. Liberato Carlos José Simonelli’s self-disqualification. The abovementioned resolution omits a decision on the composition in response to the request made regarding Drs. Elpidio Monzón and Clemente Maldonado. Therefore we request clarification of the resolution in light of the fact that the draw for April 14, 2003, must also respond to the request for removal expressly formulated by defense counsel at the moment of filing the nullity motion. This is so on the grounds that, obviously, Drs . Elpidio R. Monzón and Clemente Maldonado cannot be involved in the deliberation and resolution of the challenge against their role as temporary judges.141 83. On April 28, 2003, the Attorney General of Corrientes presented a brief to the Provincial Superior Court of Justice stating the following: (...) with regard to the composition of the Tribunal to resolve the issues raised in the pleadings (...), it is obviously appropriate for those who are temporary judges to exclude themselves, since they cannot resolve the issue that involve themselves and where they are being challenged. Therefore, the draw must exclude temporary judges.142 84. On June 18, 2003, the Superior Court of Justice of Corrientes issued a resolution rejecting the nullity and clarification motions of defense counsel. 143 The Superior Court argued that: As has already been stated when resolving similar requests in other cases, it is indisputable that the Executive Branch of the Province has formalized the appointment of three members of the Superior Court during the recess of the Senate, covering the respective positions with temporary judges for a limited time (Article 142 of the Constitution of the Province). Such a decision constitutes a political act pertaining to that branch of government and therefore outside the jurisdiction of the judicial branch(...)144. 85. On July 3, 2003, defense counsel filed an extraordinary federal appeal with the Superior Court of Justice. 145 Defense counsel stated the following: It is important to highlight, first of all, the patent contradiction incurred by the Superior Court, since, on the one hand, it argued that the issued posed by this defense is of a nonjusticiable nature and, on the other, it addressed the merits of the issue when rejecting the motion. (...) in the same sense, in as much as the impugned decision considers as "non- 139 Nullity Motion, February 20, 2003. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 140 Clarification Application, April 14, 2003. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 141 Clarification Application, April 14, 2003. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 142 Opinion of the Attorney General of Corrientes, April 28, 2003. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008 Resolution No. 35 of the Superior Court of Justice of Corrientes, June 18, 2003. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 143 144 Resolution No. 35 of the Superior Court of Justice of Corrientes, June 18, 2003. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 145 Extraordinary Federal Appeal, July 3, 2003. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 19