general, in favor of the alleged victim does not imply that he did not have an effective recourse to protect his rights (supra para. 135). 160. Given the Commission’s arguments that the STJC abstained from ruling on whether, in appointing judicial authorities, the legal and constitutional requirements were met with the argument that it was an act of another branch of the State that is not subject to judicial control, the Court considers that, in spite of the STJC maintaining that it was an act of the Executive Branch that it did not have competence to question, it did mention the elements that substantiated the lawfulness of the act to dispel doubts on the lawfulness about which the alleged victim complained (supra para. 135). Likewise, some domestic rulings referred to the need to use other channels, such as the autonomous action of constitutionality.178 161. The Court, thus, holds that there was no violation of Article 25 with respect to the recourses filed by the alleged victim to question the appointment of the temporary judges of the Second Criminal Chamber of the STJC. B.3. Regarding the recourses to question the impartiality of judges related by blood acting in connected cases 162. The Court notes that, in the “Romero Feris, Raúl Rolando and Zidianakis, Andrés for Embezzlement” case, the Second Chamber convicted the alleged victim on December 20, 2005. The defense counsel challenged this decision by filing a writ of cassation questioning, among other issues, the impartiality of one of the members of the Chamber, on the basis of Article 53 of the CPP,179 since he was a blood relative of a judge who had participated in connected cases against the alleged victim.180 163. The STJC rejected the writ of cassation and stated, among other arguments, that the law requires that a judge who has a family connection has had to have intervened in favor or against any of the parties; that those requesting the recusal did not show that there were concurring votes that were contrary or contradictory to the accused, and that in any case the challenged judge had not participated in matters in which her father had issued a resolution where there was a hypothetical provision.181 164. To appeal this decision, the alleged victim filed an REF that the STJC did not grant with the argument that “the criticisms do not respond to the standards specified by the [STJC] to establish that this is a case of an arbitrary sentence that would enable a federal path […].”182 165. The defense counsel then filed a remedy of complaint before the CSJN, which was held inadmissible under the terms of Article 280 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure.183 166. The Court observes that, as it indicated with respect to the first two arguments, in light of the obligations established in Article 25 of the Convention the decisions of the STJC responded to each of the issues presented by the alleged victim and that they were rejected with a reasoned decision that was based on domestic legal norms. The fact that the appeals were not, in general, resolved in favor of the alleged victim does not imply that he did not have an effective recourse to protect his rights (supra para. 135). Cf. First Court of Instruction, Order of September 26, 2000 (evidence file, fs. 252 to 256) or First Court of Instruction, Order of June 4, 2001 (evidence file, fs. 294 to 297). 178 Cf. Article 52(11), Code of Criminal Procedure of the Province of Corrientes: “When as Judge in a case a relative in the second degree of consanguinity had intervened or intervenes.” 179 180 Cf. Writ of cassation of February 20, 2006 (evidence file, fs. 829 to 887). 181 Cf. STJC, Judgment of October 19, 2006 (evidence file, fs. 901 to 919). 182 Cf. STJC, Resolution of February 20, 2007 (evidence file, fs. 954 to 959). 183 Cf. CSJN, Order of December 18, 2007 (evidence file, f. 1009). 32