54. On March 9, 2001, the alleged victim challenged the authority of the First Magistrate to intervene in the case. He claimed that his appointment infringed the guarantee of a natural judge, as established in the Constitution of Argentina.68 The record does not indicate how this issue was resolved. b) Motion of recusal on grounds of prejudgment and suspicion of partiality of the members of the Second Chamber 55. On August 6, 2001, the alleged victim recused the members of the Second Chamber because of their participation as an appeals court in decisions adopted during the phase of instruction.69 On August 17, 2001, the Second Chamber held the request inadmissible since the grounds offered are not a cause for recusal under the law.70 c) Appeal of Judgment N° 116 of the Second Chamber of October 31, 2001 56. On October 31, 2001, the Second Chamber sentenced Mr. Romero Feris to a term of three years and six months imprisonment and seven years of special disqualification from holding public office as the perpetrator of the offense of abuse of authority.71 The alleged victim filed a writ of cassation against that sentence.72 The available documentation does not contain the decision on the action. 57. On September 9, 2004, the alleged victim filed a REF requesting that the case be referred to the CSJN.73 The STJC declared the remedy inadmissible on May 31, 2005 because the defense counsel was unable to show an unequivocal departure from the law or an absolute lack of substantiation in the decision.74 58. On June 14, 2005, the alleged victim appealed the denial of the REF before the CSJN.75 The following day, he filed a new REF challenging part of the decision of the STJC of May 31, 2005 and requesting the recusal of the members.76 59. On September 14, 2005, the STJC rejected the REF in limine on the grounds that the proceedings had terminated and that the request of recusal of the members presented after the delivery of an adverse sentence is inadmissible.77 60. On September 23, 2005, the defense counsel filed an appeal of complaint before the CSJN.78 On March 20, 2007, after receiving the opinion of the Attorney General,79 the CSJN declared the REF inadmissible.80 68 Cf. Motion of exception of March 9, 2001 (evidence file, fs. 1010 to 1033). 69 Cf. Recusal with cause of August 6, 2001 (evidence file, fs. 1034 to 1062). 70 Cf. Second Criminal Chamber, Order N° 356 of August 17, 2002 (evidence file, fs. 1065 to 1066). 71 Cf. Second Criminal Chamber, Sentence N° 116 of October 31, 2001 (evidence file, fs. 1067 to 1103). 72 Cf. Appeal of cassation of November 27, 2001 (evidence file, fs. 1104 to 1202). 73 Cf. Special Federal Recourse of September 9, 2004 (evidence file, fs. 1267 to 1319). 74 Cf. STJC, Order N° 64 of May 31, 2005 (evidence file, fs. 1320 to 1327). 75 Cf. Appeal of complaint of July 14, 2005 (evidence file, fs. 1328 to 1376). 76 Cf. Special Federal Recourse of July 15, 2005 (evidence file, fs. 1377 to 1404). 77 Cf. STJC, Order N° 131 of September 14, 2005 (evidence file, fs. 1405 to 1407). 78 Cf. Appeal of complaint of September 23, 2005 (evidence file, fs. 1408 to 1445). 79 Cf. Opinion of the Attorney General of Argentina of November 30, 2006 (evidence file, fs. 1446 to 1458). 80 Cf. CSJN, Sentence of March 20, 2007 (evidence file, fs. 1459 to 1461). 11