definitive.166 The defense counsel then filed a remedy of complaint, which was granted by the Superior Court and which indicated to the Chamber that the petitioner had complied with his procedural duty by explaining the reasons that would invalidate the decision and that it was not a mere subjective discrepancy.167 In view of the above, the file was remitted to the Chamber to continue the legal process. 155. Mr. Romero Feris was subsequently convicted and the defense counsel filed a writ of cassation alleging, as one of the grounds, the lack of competence of the temporary member of the Chamber.168 This recourse was granted.169 However, before being resolved by the STJC, the defense counsel presented a motion of nullity questioning the legality of the temporary appointment of judges to the Chamber, again arguing that it was contrary to Article 142. Nonetheless, the STJC held a hearing for a drawing to choose the judges who would comprise the Chamber and the defense counsel filed an appeal of clarification against that decision, which was rejected on the grounds that there was no material error or omission.170 156. The alleged victim requested the revocation of that decision, disputing not only the temporary appointment, but also the action of the STJC President, who signed the decision. The STJC rejected the motion of nullity and that of revocation with the arguments that the President had acted within his legal authority to issue procedural orders and to resolve related issues and that the temporary appointment was a decision of the Executive Branch, which could not be challenged judicially. The STJC explained that it was constitutional since the special sessions that the defense counsel mentioned were not held in opposition to the law. Lastly, it pointed out that the petition had become moot since the STJC was now comprised of its permanent members.171 157. The defense counsel filed an REF against that decision.172 He also presented two motions of nullity, on different dates, requesting a new composition of the court.173 The STJC rejected the appeals of cassation, of nullity and the REF. Specifically, it decided: (a) to declare moot the issue on the integration of the STJC since the court is now comprised of permanent members; (b) to reject the writs of cassation filed against the decision of the Criminal Chamber on the alleged errors in classifying the offense and in denying of certain elements of evidence and (c) to reject the issues regarding the temporary judges and the appointment of the Examining Magistrate, justifying its legality and pointing out that those issues had already been the object of another three decisions of the same court.174 158. The defense counsel filed an REF against that decision,175 which was granted by the STJC176 and which the CSJN declared inadmissible.177 159. The Court, thus, considers that the courts admitted and processed at least eight of the ten recourses filed by the alleged victim. In those decisions, the authorities responded to each of the matters in question and resolved them with substantiations and an analysis of the claims in accord with the applicable norms. The fact that the appeals were not resolved, in 166 Cf. Second Criminal Chamber, Order N° 134 of March 14, 2002 (evidence file, f. 370). 167 Cf. STJC, Resolution N° 32 of May 7, 2002 (evidence file, fs. 394 to 395). 168 Cf. Writ of cassation of June 10, 2002 (evidence file, fs. 419 to 497). 169 Cf. Second Criminal Chamber, Order N° 493 of July 13, 2002 (evidence file, f. 499). 170 Cf. STJC, Resolution N° 3550 of May 7, 2003 (evidence file, f. 515). 171 Cf. STJC, Resolution N° 33 of July 31, 2003 (evidence file, fs. 527 to 533). 172 Cf. Special Federal Recourse of June 26, 2003 (evidence file, fs. 535 to 580). 173 Cf. Motion of absolute nullity of August 7, 2003 (evidence file, fs. 581 to 584). 174 Cf. STJC, Judgment N° 23 of April 7, 2004 (evidence file, fs. 585 to 613). 175 Cf. Special Federal Recourse of April 28, 2004 (evidence file, fs. 614 to 695). 176 Cf. STJC, Resolution N° 142 of September 15, 2004 (evidence fil, fs. 697 to 710). 177 Cf. CSJN, Judgment of February 13, 2007 (evidence file, f. 725). 31