7. The petitioners say that matters submitted to that court must be decided by agreement among the three judges, and not by the sum of individual votes cast without deliberation. They say that Mr. Rico could never reach an agreement with the other judges, who using their numerical majority blocked the work of the court and committed several irregularities. They say that the other judges tended to benefit a certain group of lawyers, the ones who participated in or were close to the operation of the San Isidro Bar Association (hereinafter, “the Association” or “the Bar Association”). 8. They submit that on November 20, 1997 Mr. Rico filed a complaint against his fellow judges for alleged irregularities and expanded on it on February 16, 1998. They claim that this complaint led to the initiation of administrative investigation nº 3001-1517/97, to which the Bar Association obtained access in an illegal manner. They claim that at the same time as Mr. Rico’s complaint, private attorneys who did not belong to the close circle of the Bar Association filed additional complaints against the other judges. 9. They contend that the Supreme Court of the Province of Buenos Aires (hereinafter, “Provincial Supreme Court”) decided to investigate the complaints, and in reprisal the Bar Association, in an effort to favor its officers and Mr. Rico’s fellow judges, tried to divert the investigation and direct it exclusively at Mr. Rico. They allege that the Bar Association began a slander campaign against Mr. Rico using its own publishers and articles. According to the petitioners, the Bar Association even published an alleged psychiatric exam of Mr. Rico which indicated his disqualification to be a judge. Subsequently, according to the petitioners, it was proved that Mr. Rico had not had that exam and that it had been fraudulently prepared. 10. They state that on June 1, 1999, the Bar Association presented a complaint against Mr. Rico that led to the initiation of administrative investigation nº 3001-1036/99. They say that based on this complaint a proceeding was instituted against the alleged victim in the Jury for Prosecution of Magistrates (hereinafter, “the Jury” or “The Jury for Prosecution”), a political organ composed of lawyers and legislators, to remove him from his post. According to the petitioners, the Jury was not impartial or independent and the lack of stability in their posts leaves the judges vulnerable to external pressure. They added that during the proceeding this organ attributed actions to the alleged victim that are not defined by law as causes for dismissal. 11. With respect to the alleged “illegalities” committed by the Jury, the petitioners state firstly, that it illegally prolonged the period for summary information, and all information and evidence added after the expiration of that period should have been declared out of order. Secondly, that the Jury had prevented Mr. Rico from presenting evidence essential for his defense, such as testimony and evidence that would demonstrate the falseness of the acts imputed to him. At the same time, the Jury accepted all evidence and additional charges presented against him. They say that as a result of this situation, when new accusations and evidence were introduced, Mr. Rico could not properly exercise his right of defense. According to the petitioners, Mr. Rico denounced these errors to the Jury for Prosecution but his complaint was rejected. 12. They submit that the Jury for Prosecution, in accordance with Article 30 of Law 8085 (hereinafter, “Law of Prosecution”), embargoed 40% of Mr. Rico’s salary from December 1999 to June 2000 while the proceeding was underway in order to pay for costs and court fees in case of a conviction. The petitioners claim that although Mr. Rico requested conversion of the embargoed amount to U.S. dollars to preserve that amount during the country’s economic crisis, the request was denied. 13. They assert that because of the refusal to convert the amount to dollars, the amount lost 75% of its value. In addition, when the proceeding was over, the Jury set an excessive and arbitrary amount for the court costs that far exceeded the amount that had been embargoed as a guarantee. On this point, the petitioners say that Mr. Rico had in a timely manner requested access to the prosecution proceeding to analyze the setting of costs against him, and to know if it was soundly based, but the Jury denied the request even though he was a party to the proceeding. 14. They state that Article 45 of the Law of Prosecution stipulates that resolutions of the President or the Jury for Prosecution are not appealable, unless for clarification when the verdict orders dismissal of the accused. The petitioners say that based on the Argentine Federal Supreme Court’s