appoint judges according to the aforementioned placements is not regulated. However, in terms of the right to an independent and impartial authority, the Commission reiterates the importance of clear rules for the appointment of judges; and that such appointment processes be strictly observed and that they follow criteria based on merit. The Commission considers that the existence of a competitive selection process on its own does not guarantee the suitability and independence of the members of the judiciary if the appointment is not based on the results of such a competitive process. In that sense, the appointment of a candidate placed ninth in a competitive selection process must be evaluated with special caution. 129. In this regard, the IACHR observes that Mr. Romero Feris, in addition to invoking the lack of a legal obligation to appoint the candidates placed in the first positions of the competitive selection process, did not receive any other explanation of the grounds on which the challenged Magistrate was selected, despite the result of said selection process; other channels to challenge the situation were not pointed out to him either. Neither was there an answer to his argument on the political dimension to the appointment and its irregularities. The lack of a substantial response to the issues raised by Mr. Romero Feris and their connection with a political dimension, is even more problematic, in light of the fact that Instructing Magistrate No.1, whose appointment and precedence was challenged through these remedies, heard not one but four criminal cases on which the IACHR has information. 130. Secondly, as regards the challenge to the application of the rules of jurisdiction that assigned competence to Instructing Magistrate No.1 to hear the criminal cases, the petitioner alleged that said Judge was exempted from hearing other cases so that he could hear all the cases relating to Mr. Romero Feris. On this point, the Commission considers that, in principle, it is incumbent on the States to establish the rules on jurisdiction and competence for its judiciary and to apply them in specific cases. Non-compliance with such rules by the domestic authorities may result in a violation of the right to be tried by a competent authority. The Commission observes that at different stages the judicial authorities ruled on the matter upholding the decisions by invoking the corresponding legal grounds but without providing an answer to the petitioner’s challenge on this issue. An explicit answer regarding the application of these rules was particularly relevant, in light of the doubts hanging over the appointment of Instructing Magistrate No.1, placed ninth in his competitive selection process, as already indicated above. 131. In the third place, the challenge to the composition of Criminal Chamber No. 2 and of the Superior Court of Justice, whose members were appointed temporarily by the Executive, is at issue, in light of the allegation that the Senate was not in recess, as required by Article 142 of the Provincial Constitution. In this regard, the Commission observes that this challenge was repeatedly raised within the framework of all cases initiated against the alleged victim. The consistent answer provided to Mr. Romero Feris was that the appointment of the members of these collegiate bodies was an act of the Executive Branch and, therefore, exempt from judicial control. Only once was he informed that the Senate was in recess at the time of one of the appointments. The Commission observes that even the Attorney General of Corrientes acknowledged the arguments of Mr. Romero Feris’s defense counsel and indicated that in light of the principal of the natural judge, any temporary judges should be removed from the cases. Due to this opinion, the said Attorney General was removed from his position. 132. The Commission does not have the elements at its disposal to establish whether members of the Criminal Chamber No. 2 and of the Superior Court of Justice were or were not appointed according to Article 142 of the Provincial Constitution. However, the Commission considers that the absence of a clear ruling refraining on whether the appointment of judicial authorities complied with the legal and constitutional requirements, on the grounds that such appointment is within the sphere of another branch of government beyond judicial review, violates the right to judicial protection, in connection with the right to trial by a competent, independent and impartial authority. 133. Fourthly, as regards the challenge to the involvement of a Magistrate from Criminal Chamber No. 2 with close family ties another judge participating in cases against Mr. Romero Feris, the Commission observes that this was rejected by the Superior Court of Justice, on the grounds that recusation requires that the chamber members with close family ties must have issued contradictory or contrary decisions against the accused, which was not the case. This requirement, however, is not provided for in the legislation regulating 31