127. The State asserted the lack of a legal obligation to appoint the first person on the list of the competition. It also indicated that the arguments to reject or not to admit the remedies were within the legal and constitutional competences of those who made the decision. A.2. Regarding the remedies on the appointment of temporary judges of the Second Chamber and of the STJC 128. The Commission observed that the alleged victim challenged the competence of the temporary judges of the Second Chamber and of the STJC because they had been appointed by the Executive Branch when the Senate was not in recess, contrary to Article 142 of the Provincial Constitution. It claimed that the responses to those remedies were not effective because the STJC abstained from ruling on whether the legal and constitutional requisites were followed in the appointment of the judicial authorities with the argument that it was an act of another branch of the State that is not subject to judicial control. The representative referred to what was expressed by the Commission in its Merits Report. 129. The State claimed that the arguments of the Commission were not precise, which prevented the Court from considering the harm. It also referred to the arguments that were used to reject or not to admit the remedies and emphasized that these decisions were in accord with the legal and constitutional competences of the national judges. A.3. Regarding the remedy to question the impartiality of the judges who were related by blood acting in connected cases 130. The Commission noted that the alleged victim filed a remedy that questioned the impartiality of a judge of the Second Chamber who had a family member who had participated in cases relating to the alleged victim. It claimed that the remedy was not effective since the Chamber denied the request based on the argument that there is nothing in the law against it; specifically, that recusal requires that the members of the Chamber who are related by blood must have issued contradictory or contrary opinions against the alleged victim. In the opinion of the Commission, this lack of effectiveness was also demonstrated in the response to the filing of the REF when the SCJN declared it inadmissible because the interpretation of the norm was not a federal matter. The representative referred to what was expressed by the Commission in its Merits Report. 131. The State asserted that a mere reading of the applicable norm would show that the cause for recusal only proceeds if the two judges intervene in the context of the same case, a situation that, in its opinion, does not occur in this case since it concerns related cases. With respect to the REF, the State noted that it was rejected in accordance with the opinion of the Attorney General. A.4. Regarding the remedies filed to question the actions of the members of the Second Chamber who had intervened in the investigative phase in the same cases 132. The Commission noted that the alleged victim presented various remedies impugning the impartiality of some members of the Second Chamber. It claimed that those remedies were not effective since they were rejected because such a situation is not a cause for recusal in the domestic legislation, without analyzing the merits. The representative referred to what was expressed by the Commission in its Merits Report. 133. The State argued that there is nothing to indicate in any way that the intervention of the judges who had acted as a higher court for the procedural motions would have been partial, prejudiced or submitted to undue restriction in the exercise of their functions. 26