the grounds for recusation in subsection 11 of Article 52 of the Code of Criminal Procedure establishing that "whenever in the case there is past or current intervention as judge of any relative within the second level of consanguinity ". Subsequently, when Mr. Romero Feris’ defense counsel sought to challenge this issue through a federal remedy, the opinion of the Prosecutor in the sense that the interpretation of Article 52 subsection 11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Corrientes was not relevant, prevailed. 134. It follows from the foregoing that, at the provincial level, Mr. Romero Feris was told that the challenge could not proceed on the basis of requirement not contemplated by the law; meanwhile, at the federal level, he was told that the interpretation of that rule had no sufficient federal relevance. In this regard, the Commission considers that Mr. Romero Feris did not have access to an effective remedy to challenge the impartiality of the aforementioned magistrate. 135. Fifthly, with regard to the recusation against members of Criminal Chamber No.2 that had reviewed some procedural steps in the instruction phase, it was rejected on the grounds that this circumstance was not foreseen as a ground for challenge in domestic law. The Commission recalls that in the Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, the Court stated that the same magistrates composing the Chamber where more than one remedy related to the same case has been filed, and such magistrates analyzing the merits and not only the procedural issues, violates the requirement of impartiality established in Article 8.1 of the American Convention.215 136. The Commission lacks sufficient elements to establish specifically which were the decisions reviewed by Criminal Chamber No.2 in connection with the instruction stage. In that regard, the Commission is not in a position to determine whether they were sufficiently relevant to the merits of the case so as to be able to establish whether a violation of the right to be tried by an impartial tribunal took place as a result. However, the Commission considers that the manner in which the appeal was decided, solely on the grounds of the requirements for recusation in the domestic legislation, leads to the conclusion that the remedy was ineffective in establishing whether or not the guarantee of impartiality had been compromised by the decisions taken by the Chamber at different stages of these proceedings. 137. Sixth is the challenge against the Superior Court of Justice for having reached a decision with the participation of only three of its five members, even though Article 20 of the Organic Law on the Administration of Justice provided that decisions should be reached by absolute majority of all its members. In this regard, the IACHR observes that the National Attorney General issued an opinion in which he acknowledged that the decision was adopted by only three members of the Superior Court. Despite this, the Attorney General indicated that in view of the fact that the decision had been unanimous and without dissent, there was no clear demonstration of how this had affected Mr. Romero Feris. For its part, the Supreme Court of Justice declared inadmissible the recurso de queja filed on the basis of this allegation without further reasoning beyond reliance on Article 280 of the National Civil and Commercial Procedural Code. 138. The Commission reiterates that the right to be tried by a competent authority is related to strict compliance with the procedures legally established for such a trial, which has particular relevance concerning criminal proceedings. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the IACHR does not have sufficient elements to decide on this issue. 139. By virtue of the observations in this section, the Commission concludes that during the criminal cases against Mr. Romero Feris, his defense filed, on a number of occasions and in different appeals a series of challenges relating to the right to be tried by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal. Despite this, the challenges were rejected on grounds based on generic invocations of the law or the inadmissibility of the remedy used. However, it is a common theme in the documentation reviewed by the IACHR that Mr. Romero Feris did not have access to an effective judicial response to his right to be tried by a competent, independent and impartial authority. He did not receive a concrete response to his challenges 215 I/A Court H.R. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, paras. 174-175. 32