‘having been found to meet the grounds for recusal and/or for reasons of the utmost decorum and sensitivity,’” thereby committing the minor offense stipulated in Article 21.e of Law 8085.29 64. The Jury also unanimously considered it proven that the alleged victim “allowed procedural deadlines for delivering judgments to expire and has issued pronouncements after requests were made for prompt despatch,” thereby committing the minor offense envisaged in Article 21.k.30 65. Furthermore, following the vote, all the members of the Jury considered that the alleged victim should be dismissed, based on their "inner convictions" or what they stated in their individual votes on each question. They did not provide reasons to explain why that penalty was appropriate or provide any justification on the propriety of the punishment of ineligibility, which was only included in the operative part of the decision.31 66. For example, Judge Guillermo San Martín said: "I believe, based on my inner convictions, that Dr. Eduardo Rico should be dismissed from his post as judge of the Sixth Labor Tribunal of San Isidro.” Furthermore, Judge Jorge Mariezcurrena said: “in accordance with what was said in all the points on which I cast my vote, based on my inner convictions Dr. Rico should be terminated as a judge.” Judge Oscar Antonio Huerta said in that regard: "in keeping with the vote issued on the preceding questions and in accordance with Article 45 of Law 8085, based on my inner convictions the accused should be dismissed.” Those sentiments were echoed by Judge Enrique Pedro Basla, Judge Gustavo Ferrari, and Judge Margarita Maroni de Bercetche in their pronouncements.32 67. The Commission notes that the judgment itself does not explain the Board's reasoning as a collegiate body for considering why certain facts were proven or how those facts were consistent with the causes set out in paragraphs e, f, and k of Law 8085. 2. Special appeal for nullity 68. On July 6, 2000, the alleged victim filed a special appeal for nullity against the decision mentioned in the preceding paragraph with the Supreme Court of the Province of Buenos Aires.33 69. The alleged victim said that in the framework of the nullity appeal, he recused Judge San Martín, who served as President of the Impeachment Jury. He said that the aforesaid judge accepted his recusal, and therefore was not involved in the decision on the nullity appeal. 70. In the nullity appeal, the alleged victim argued that the principle of legality and due process were violated by the “forced match between the facts and the conduct classified in paragraphs e, f, and k of the aforesaid law....”34 71. He also submitted that the punishment of ineligibility to hold another post in the judiciary was unconstitutional, arguing that while Article 45 of Law 8085 contemplated the penalty of ineligibility, it was not envisaged in the Provincial Statute and is banned under Article 115 of the National Constitution, which provides that the verdict of the Impeachment Jury "shall have no other effect than the removal of the 29Annex 2. Vote of the Impeachment Jury of June 15, 2000. Annex 3 to the initial petition of March 4, 2002. 30Annex 2. Vote of the Impeachment Jury of June 15, 2000. Annex 3 to the initial petition of March 4, 2002. 31Annex 2. Vote of the Impeachment Jury of June 15, 2000. Annex 3 to the initial petition of March 4, 2002. 32Annex 2. Vote of the Impeachment Jury of June 15, 2000. Annex 3 to the initial petition of March 4, 2002. 33Annex 5. Special appeal for nullity, July 6, 2000. Annex 4 to the initial petition of March 4, 2002. 34Annex 5. Special appeal for nullity, July 6, 2000. Annex 4 to the initial petition of March 4, 2002.