d) Request that all the instructional acts and procedural measures of Magistrate M.P. be declared null and void 61. On February 6, 2002, the alleged victim requested that all the acts of Examining Magistrate M.P. in the case before the STJC be declared null and void. He claimed that the judge’s appointment violated the constitutional guarantee of a natural judge and, therefore, due process.81 62. On February 12, 2002, the Deputy Attorney General of the Province of Corrientes considered that, before ruling, he should set up another file on the motion of nullity.82 e) Motion that the composition of the STJC be declared null and void 63. On February 20, 2013, the alleged victim filed an appeal of absolute nullity against the decision of February 12 regarding the composition of the STJC. He claimed that three judges were not appointed under the procedure established by the Constitution of the Province.83 64. On April 10, 2003, due to the recusal of Judge C.J.S., the President of the STJC ordered a “drawing for the composition of the [STJC],” to which the alleged victim filed an appeal of clarification requesting that “[…] the drawing, to be held April 14, 2003, should also deal with the request for the recusal […of] Judges [E.R.M. and C.M…].”84 65. On June 18, 2003, having consulted the Attorney General of Corrientes who recommended revoking the appealed decree and excluding the judges who were temporarily named by the Executive Branch from the drawing,85 the STJC rejected the appeals of nullity and clarification.86 66. On July 3, 2003, the alleged victim filed an REF against that decision.87 On March 16, 2004, the STJC declared the question of the configuration of the STJC moot, as the new composition made it unnecessary to further consider the matter.88 C.4. Case: Intervention Commissioner of the City of Corrientes, Juan Carlos Zubieta by Complaint Motion of nullity with a subsidiary appeal against all the orders and procedural acts of Magistrate M.P. 67. On July 24, 2000, the alleged victim filed a motion of nullity with a subsidiary appeal against all the orders and procedural acts of the First Magistrate.89 On April 5, 2001, after consulting the First Attorney General, who considered that the remedy should be rejected,90 the First Magistrate denied the remedy and declared the subsidiary appeal inadmissible.91 81 Cf. Motion of absolute nullity of February 6, 2002 (evidence file, fs. 1203 to 1210). Cf. Report of the Attorney General of Corrientes to the STJC of February 12, 2002 (evidence file, fs. 1211 to 1213). 82 83 Cf. Motion of absolute nullity of February 20, 2003 (evidence file, fs. 1214 to 1221). 84 Cf. Appeal of clarification of April 14, 2003 (evidence file, fs. 1222 to 1224). 85 Cf. Report of the Attorney General of Corrientes of April 28, 2003 (evidence file, fs. 1225 to 1227). 86 Cf. STJC, Order N° 35 of June 18, 2003 (evidence file, fs. 1228 to 1233). 87 Cf. Special Federal Recourse of July 3, 2003 (evidence file, fs. 1234 to 1263). 88 Cf. STJC, Order N° 29 of March 16, 2004 (evidence file, fs. 1264 to 1266). 89 Cf. Motion of nullity and a subsidiary appeal of July 24, 2000 (evidence file, fs. 1462 to 1477). 90 Cf. Report of the First Prosecutor of Instruction of August 18, 2000 (evidence file, fs. 1478 to 1483). 91 Cf. First Court of Instruction, Order of April 5, 2001 (evidence file, fs. 1484 to 1489). 12