Corrientes (hereinafter also “Superior Court” or “STJC”) accepted “the remedy of complaint for the denied writ of cassation, but only to return it” and “remitted the file “a-quo” to continue the process according to the law.”34 d) Request of recusal for prejudgment and suspicion of partiality of the members of the Second Chamber 33. On April 25, 2002, the alleged victim recused A.R.P., L.C.J.S. and F.C. on the grounds of prejudgment and suspicion of impartiality and sought to remove them from the case and from all other cases in which he was a party. He based the request on the rejection of evidence that he had offered. His defense counsel argued that the statements of the judges in refusing part of the evidence demonstrated a preconceived notion on the guilt of his client.35 34. On April 26, 2002, the Second Chamber declared the request inadmissible, holding that the justification was not among those that the law specifically admits for recusal.36 e) Appeal of Judgment N° 8 of the Second Chamber 35. On June 10, 2002, the alleged victim filed a writ of cassation against the Second Chamber’s Judgment N° 8 of May 17 that convicted him of conjoint offenses of misfeasance to the detriment of the public administration; sentenced him to a term of seven years’ imprisonment and to special perpetual disqualification from holding public office. It also upheld the civil suit that obligated him to pay the Municipality of Corrientes the sum of eight million, seven hundred ninety thousand nine hundred pesos (ARS 8,790,900).37 On June 13, 2002, the Chamber granted the motion.38 f) Motion that the composition of the STJC be declared null and void 36. On February 18, 2003, the alleged victim petitioned that the composition of the STJC be declared null and void.39 On April 14, 2003, he filed an appeal of clarification against the decision of April 10, 2003 that, due to the recusal of Judge L.C.J.S., called a hearing to hold a drawing to replace him.40 On May 7, 2003, the President of the STJC rejected the motion on the grounds that it was without merit.41 37. On May 14, the alleged victim filed a request of reconsideration and nullity against the decision of May 7. He claimed that the request of clarification should not have been resolved by the President alone, but rather that it required a ruling by the permanent members of the Court, not by temporary judges.42 38. On June 2, 2003, the Attorney General of Corrientes submitted the report requested by the STJC, in which he considered that it is the permanent members who should resolve the the request of clarification and nullity because the President had exceeded his authority under domestic law.43 On June 11, 2003, the STJC decided to: “(1) reject the request for clarification 34 Cf. STJC, Resolution N° 32 of May 7, 2002 (evidence file, fs. 392 to 395). 35 Cf. Recusal with cause of April 25, 2002 (evidence file, fs, 396 to 412). 36 Cf. Second Criminal Chamber, Order N° 346 of April 26, 2002 (evidence file, fs. 413 to 416). 37 Cf. Writ of cassation of June10, 2002 (evidence file, fs. 417 to 497). 38 Cf. Second Criminal Chamber, Order N° 493 of June 13, 2002 (evidence file, fs. 498 to 500). 39 Cf. Motion of absolute nullity of February 18, 2003 (evidence file, fs. 501 to 507). 40 Cf. Appeal of clarification of April 14, 2003 (evidence file, fs. 508 to 512). 41 Cf. STJC, Resolution N° 3550 of May 7, 2003 (evidence file, fs. 513 to 516). 42 Cf. Appeal of revocation of May 14, 2003 (evidence file, fs. 517 to 520). 43 Cf. Report of the Attorney General of Corrientes to the STJC of June 2, 2003 (evidence file, fs. 521 to 525). 8