[…] (2) reject the motion of nullity […] (3) remove the […] Deputy Attorney General from this case and all consolidated cases.”44 39. On June 26, 2003, the alleged victim filed a Special Federal Recourse (hereinafter also “REF”) because he claimed that the STJC decision of June 11 was arbitrary.45 40. On August 7, 2003, the alleged victim requested that the STJC be reconstituted. He stated that two of the persons who had been appointed as temporary judges by the Executive Branch had not been ratified by the Provincial Senate and that, therefore, they were unable to perform their functions and, thus, it was necessary to form a new court to resolve the pending issues.46 On April 7, 2004, the STJC declared the issue regarding the composition of the STJC to be moot and rejected the remedies.47 41. On April 26, 2004, the alleged victim filed an REF against the STJC decision.48 On September 15, 2004, the STJC granted the REF.49 42. On February 13, 2007, the Supreme Court of Argentina (hereinafter “CSJN”), after receiving the opinion of the Attorney General, declared the REF inadmissible.50 C.2. Case: Romero Embezzlement Feris, Raúl Rolando and Zidianakis, Andrés for a) Motion of nullity with a subsidiary appeal against all the orders and procedural acts of Magistrate M.P. 43. As in the first case, the alleged victim filed a motion of nullity with a subsidiary appeal against all the orders and procedural acts of the First Magistrate.51 44. On September 26, 2000, the First Magistrate rejected the recourse. The Court notes that the arguments on which the alleged victim based the remedy and those employed by the magistrate in rejecting it are similar to those in the previous case. b) Motion of exception of lack of jurisdiction and competence 45. On September 7, 2001, the alleged victim raised, as in the previous case, the exception of lack of jurisdiction and competence.52 On March 18, 2004, the surrogate Examining Magistrate of the Sixth Court of Instruction declared the request inadmissible.53 46. On March 24, 2004, the alleged victim appealed that decision.54 On April 12, 2004, the surrogate Magistrate rejected the alleged victim’s opposition to remittance to a higher court and forwarded the matter to the Second Chamber.55 44 Cf. STJC, Resolution N° 33 of June 11, 2003 (evidence file, fs. 526 to 534). 45 Cf. Special Federal Recourse of June 26, 2003 (evidence file, fs. 535 to 580). 46 Cf. Motion of absolute nullity of August 7, 2003 (evidence file, fs. 581 to 584). 47 Cf. STJC, Sentence N° 23 of April 7, 2004 (evidence file, fs. 585 to 613). 48 Cf. Special Federal Recourse of April 26, 2004 (evidence file, fs. 614 to 695). 49 Cf. STJC, Order N° 142 of September 15, 2004 (evidence file, fs. 696 to 710). 50 Cf. CSJN, Sentence of February 13, 2007 (evidence file, fs. 724 to 725). 51 Cf. Motion of nullity with subsidiary appeal of July 27, 2000 (evidence file, fs. 726 to 740). 52 Cf. Motion of exception of September 7, 2001 (evidence file, fs. 746 to 775). 53 Cf. Sixth Court of Instruction, Order N° 182 of March 18, 2004 (evidence file, fs. 776 to 780). 54 Cf. Recourse of appeal of March 24, 2004 (evidence file, fs. 781 to 784). 55 Cf. Second Court of Instruction, Order N° 226 of April 12, 2004 (evidence file, fs. 785 to 797). 9