56. On June 1, 2000, the Impeachment Jury decided "to reject the motions for nullity filed by the accused."23 In that connection, it said that the accused was notified of the additional charges so that he might exercise his right of defense in full. Furthermore, as regards the extension of the time limit for the preliminary inquiry, it said that it "provided the opportunity for the exercise of greater oversight by the accused, who consented to proceeding in that manner.”24 Finally, it said that the Jury accepted all the evidence offered that met the legal requirements.25 1. Judgment 57. On June 15, 2000, the Impeachment Jury found that the alleged victim met the grounds envisaged in paragraphs e, f, and k of Article 21 of Law 8085, which referred, respectively, to “reiterated incompetence or negligence demonstrated in the performance of official duties,” “reiterated failure to perform the official duties inherent to the post,” and “reiterated allowance of procedural deadlines to lapse without pronouncing on the matters submitted for a decision or an opinion, which cannot be excused on the grounds of excessive workload or absence of a claim by the interested party,” and therefore decided 1. TO DISMISS Dr. EDUARDO RICO as a judge of the Sixth Labor Tribunal of San Isidro. 2. To decree him ineligible to occupy any other judicial post hereafter....26 58. The Commission notes that the decision process was divided into two parts: the first consisted of an individual vote on matters put to the members of the Jury, which in this case consisted of 16 questions with various sub- questions;27 the second contains the judgment per se. [… continuation] notes in this regard that Article 30 of Law 8085 provided that "as a result of the proceedings, the suspended official shall have 40 percent of their pay garnished. The accused judge shall continue to receive the remaining 60 percent until the Jury delivers its verdict, which, if a conviction, shall entail the automatic cessation of such payments. Law 8085, Rules of Procedure for the Impeachment Judges. 23Annex 1. Decision of the Impeachment Jury of June 1, 2000. Annex 14 to the initial petition of March 4, 2002. 24Annex 1, Decision of the Impeachment Jury of June 1, 2000. Annex 14 to the initial petition of March 4, 2002. 25Annex 1. Decision of the Impeachment Jury of June 1, 2000. Annex 14 to the initial petition of March 4, 2002. 26Annex 2. Judgment of the Impeachment Jury of June 15, 2000. Annex 3 to the initial petition of March 4, 2002. 27The questions that the members of the Jury had to answer were as follows: 1.1 Is it proven that Judge Eduardo Rico refused 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 that he referred to his peers as "de facto president and de facto vice president"? 1.2 Does this fact constitute one of the criminal offenses envisaged in Article 20 of the Impeachment Law? 1.3 Does this fact constitute one of the minor offenses envisaged in Article 21 of the Impeachment Law? 1.4 Is the accused responsible for the criminal offense that has been declared proven? 1.5 Is the accused responsible for the minor offense that has been declared proven? 2.1 Is it proven that Dr. Rico obstructed the holding of hearings, with such conduct entailing clear adverse effects to the parties? 2.2 Does this fact constitute one of the criminal offenses envisaged in Article 20 of the Impeachment Law? 2.3 Does this fact constitute one of the minor offenses envisaged in Article 21 of the Impeachment Law? 2.4 Is the accused responsible for the criminal offense that has been declared proven? 2.5 Is the accused responsible for the minor offense that has been declared proven? 3.1 Is it proven that Dr. Rico ordered 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? 3.2 Does this fact constitute one of the criminal offenses envisaged in Article 20 of the Impeachment Law? 3.3 Does this fact constitute one of the minor offenses envisaged in Article 21 of the Impeachment Law? 3.4 Is the accused responsible for the criminal offense that has been declared proven? 3.5 Is the accused responsible for the minor offense that has been declared proven; 4.1 Is it proven that he prominently displayed in the interior of two vehicles that he used a judiciary permit that he was not authorized to use? 4.2 Does this fact constitute one of the criminal offenses envisaged in Article 20 of the Impeachment Law? 4.3 Does this fact constitute one of the minor offenses envisaged in Article 21 of the Impeachment Law? 4.4 is the accused responsible for the criminal offense that has been declared proven? 4.5 Is the accused responsible for the minor offense that has been declared proven? 5.1 Is it proven that he refused to swear an oath of loyalty to the Buenos Aires flag before the President of the Tribunal, Dr. Marigo? 5.2 Does this fact constitute one of the criminal offenses envisaged in Article 20 of the Impeachment Law? 5.3 Does this fact constitute one of the minor offenses envisaged in Article 21 of the Impeachment Law? 5.4 Is the accused responsible for the criminal offense that has been declared proven? 5.5 Is the accused responsible for the minor offense that has been declared proven? 6.1 Is it proven that he requested his peers to recuse themselves and thereby abstain from intervening in those proceedings in which he had been recused for "having been found to meet the grounds for recusal and/or for reasons of the utmost decorum and sensitivity”? 6.2 Does this fact constitute one of the criminal offenses envisaged in Article 20 of the Impeachment Law? 6.3 Does this fact constitute one of the minor offenses envisaged in Article 21 of the Impeachment Law? 6.4 is the accused responsible for the criminal offense that has been declared proven? 6.5 Is the [continues …]