attributed by the Constitution without any restriction. Therefore the Law Creating the Council of Magistrates does not impose on the Executive Branch the obligation to appoint the first candidate on the list, not even the first three.25 28. The Instructing Magistrate No.1 noted the following (...) the undersigned understands, coinciding with the opinion of the Instructing Prosecutor No. 1, that the motion must be rejected.26 29. On May 24, 2001, Mr. Romero's defense counsel filed with Instructing Magistrate No.1 of Corrientes the exception of lack of jurisdiction and competence. 27 Regarding the appointment of said person as Instructing Magistrate No.1, his defense alleged the following (...) there were a total of thirty-two candidates [for the post]. After an evaluation, the Council drew up "a list of the most qualified applicants" and stated ... that among them the first two achieved ... the highest level of excellence in the position; the third to fifth place candidates showed notable abilities; and the sixth to the tenth candidates showed sufficient merits for performance as a magistrate.28 30. On June 4, 2001, Instructing Magistrate No.1 of the City of Corrientes rejected the exceptions filed by defense counsel, 29 on the grounds of a previous decision of December 1999, in the framework of another case against Mr. Romero Feris regarding the Court’s jurisdiction. It was stated as follows: That, in the opinion of the undersigned, the exceptions of lack of jurisdiction and competence raised must be rejected (...). Applicant states that the judge in charge of this court lacks jurisdiction hear the case due to the attribution of "universal" competence. In this regard, it is necessary to bear in mind that the Superior Court of Justice, this Province’s highest Court, when hearing this issue resolved on December 1999 (...) "1. To declare the competence and jurisdiction of the consolidated cases against the accused (...), in Instructing Court No.1 (...)", a decision that, to date, is definitive, and is based on the strict observance of the procedural rules governing subjective connection. Thus, it is beyond the competence of the undersigned to reexamine a decision of the Superior Court of Justice, which in any case should have been appealed before a higher court – a Federal Court – on the grounds of the guarantee of a natural judge.30 31. On June 7, 2001, defense counsel filed an appeal against that decision,31 which the assignment of jurisdiction by said Judge was made irregularly and in breach of the rules of connection and 25 Order No. 1267 of the Instructing Magistrate No.1, September 26, 2000. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 26 Order No. 1267 of the Instructing Magistrate No.1, September 26, 2000. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 27 Brief of Exceptions, May 24, 2001. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 28 Brief of Exceptions, May 24, 2001. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 2008. 2008. Order No. 989 of the Instructing Magistrate No.1 of Corrientes, June 4, 2001. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 29 30 Order No. 989 of the Instructing Magistrate No.1 of Corrientes, June 4, 2001. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 31 Appeal Motion, June 7, 2001. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 6