59. The Commission observes that in the voting process, all nine members of the Jury responded to the 16 questions, indicating the charges that they considered proven, the grounds for infringement, and their personal appreciations. From a comprehensive reading of the decision, the Commission notes that on several occasions the questions receive the same responses. However, some members of the Impeachment Jury differed from others in terms of the reasons provided for those responses. 60. Thus, for example, in the response to question 12.1, "Is it proven that he has treated employees of this tribunal and lawyers improperly”? Judge Alfonsín said that "while it is true that mistreatment of his colleagues is not on the list of offenses with which he is charged, I mention it as a way of illustrating his erratic behavior evinced by his constant overreaction.” For his part, Judge Aldazabal said, “I would echo the reasons given by Dr. San Martín in his vote on this matter, with the sole dissent that I do not believe that it is suitably proven that the accused challenged Dr. Pastore to a fight outside the Tribunal.”28 61. As the vote shows, the Jury found unanimously that the alleged victim had engaged in the following conduct: 1. Refusal to sign the agreement formalizing the change of presidency by reason of expiration of the annual term limit legally prescribed in Article 54 of Law 5827 and referring to his peers as "de facto president and de facto vice president”; 2. Ordering all proceedings in which Dr. Gonzales Rubio was involved as counsel to be held in reserve until psychiatrists issued an evaluation of the faculties of the aforesaid professional and/or the illicit acts committed by him; 3. Refusal to swear an oath of loyalty to the Buenos Aires flag before the President of the Tribunal, Dr. Marigo; 4. Refusal to cast a vote in cases in which he had a legal obligation to do so; 5. Improper treatment of employees of the tribunal and lawyers. It also unanimously found that the preceding five charges met the grounds envisaged in article 21.f of Law 8085. 62. Furthermore, eight members of the Jury considered it proven that “Dr. Rico obstructed the holding of hearings, with such conduct entailing clear adverse effects to the parties,” thereby committing the minor offense stipulated in Article 21.f of Law 8085. 63. The Jury also unanimously found that the alleged victim “requested his peers to recuse themselves and thereby abstain from intervening in those proceedings in which he had been recused for [… continuation] accused responsible for the minor offense that has been declared proven? 7.1 Is it proven that he was repeatedly absent from his place of work without justification? 7.2 Does this fact constitute one of the criminal offenses envisaged in Article 20 of the Impeachment Law? 7.3 Does this fact constitute one of the minor offenses envisaged in Article 21 of the Impeachment Law? 7.4 Is the accused responsible for the criminal offense that has been declared proven? 7.5 Is the accused responsible for the minor offense that has been declared proven? 8.1 Is it proven that he refused to cast a vote in cases in which he had a legal obligation to do so? 8.2 Does this fact constitute one of the criminal offenses envisaged in Article 20 of the Impeachment Law? 8.3 Does this fact constitute one of the minor offenses envisaged in Article 21 of the Impeachment Law? 8.4 Is the accused responsible for the criminal offense that has been declared proven? 8.5 Is the accused responsible for the minor offense that has been declared proven? 9.1 Is it proven that he attempted to intervene in a proceeding from which he was excused? 9.2 Does this fact constitute one of the criminal offenses envisaged in Article 20 of the Impeachment Law? 9.3 Does this fact constitute one of the minor offenses envisaged in Article 21 of the Impeachment Law? 9.4 Is the accused responsible for the criminal offense that has been declared proven? 9.5 Is the accused responsible for the minor offense that has been declared proven? 10.1 Is it proven that Dr. Eduardo Rico dispensed preferential treatment in cases in which Dr. Coronado was involved as counsel? 10.2 Does this fact constitute one of the criminal offenses envisaged in Article 20 of the Impeachment Law? 10.3 Does this fact constitute one of the minor offenses envisaged in Article 21 of the Impeachment Law? 10.4 Is the accused responsible for the criminal offense that has been declared proven? 10.5 Is the accused responsible for the minor offense that has been declared proven? 11.1 Is it proven that he stated that he would not comply with the decision of the Court? 11.2 Does this fact constitute one of the criminal offenses envisaged in Article 20 of the Impeachment Law? 11.3 Does this fact constitute one of the minor offenses envisaged in Article 21 of the Impeachment Law? 11.4 Is the accused responsible for the criminal offense that has been declared proven? 11.5 Is the accused responsible for the minor offense that has been declared proven? 12.1 Is it proven that he has treated employees of this tribunal and lawyers improperly? 12.2 Does this fact constitute one of the criminal offenses envisaged in Article 20 of the Impeachment Law? 12.3 Does this fact constitute one of the minor offenses envisaged in Article 21 of the Impeachment Law? 12.4 Is the accused responsible for the criminal offense that has been declared proven? 12.5 Is the accused responsible for the minor offense that has been declared proven? 13.1 is it proven that he allowed procedural deadlines for delivering judgments to expire and has issued pronouncements after requests were made for prompt dispatch? 13.2 Does this fact constitute one of the criminal offenses envisaged in Article 20 of the Impeachment Law? 13.3 Does this fact constitute one of the minor offenses envisaged in Article 21 of the Impeachment Law? 13.4 Is the accused responsible for the criminal offense that has been declared proven? 13.5 Is the accused responsible for the minor offense that has been declared proven? 14. Should the accused be dismissed? 15. Should the accused be ordered to pay costs? 16. Should the plaintiff be ordered to pay costs? 28Annex 2. Vote of the Impeachment Jury of June 15, 2000. Annex 3 to the initial petition of March 4, 2002.