57. Mr. Preckel filed a petition in error because of denial to appeal with the Supreme Court.85 On May 21, 1996, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation ruled that the appeal filed by him is inadmissible and, therefore, denied the petition.86 The Supreme Court only noted that its decision was based on Article 280 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure of the Nation.87 The Supreme Court judgment had one dissenting opinion from the Vice President, Eduardo Moline O’Connor, who wrote the following: (…) the appellant is right in claiming that the ruling –to the extent that it resolves that it is not proper for the DGI to entertain a claim, the reason for which would be found in the unlawful actions of the National Executive Branch– has mentioned an untimely invoked defense. The problem is that, in keeping with the doctrine of this Court, it is inadmissible to include in litigation an un-alleged defense or one that is introduced at an improper time, in order for it to be possible to adequately discuss whether or not it is admissible and out of order; because, otherwise, it would entail an infringement of the right to due process protected under the constitution.88 2.2. Appeals filed by Elba Clotilde Perrone 58. With respect to the case brought by Mrs. Perrone, on May 6, 1992, she appealed the ruling of the Federal Judge.89 She contended that, in keeping with legislation in force at the time, particularly the Rules on Leaves of Absence, Justifications and Exemptions of the National Public Administration, claims may be filed for payment of lost wages, when the absences involved occur “because of special cases of force majeure.”90 59. On September 21, 1993, the Chamber of Appeals reversed the ruling of the trial court agreeing with the merits of the appeal.91 The Chamber wrote the following in its ruling: (…) an equitable solution (…) can be reached in keeping with the provisions of law which allowed justification of absences with payment of wages by agents in cases of duly proven force majeure. Examples of the aforementioned are D.G.I. Collective 46/75 (Article 192.a) in force at the time of the plaintiff’s detention, and decree 3.413/79 (Article 14c) in effect as of the date of her reinstatement.92 85 Juan Preckel’s petition in error because of denial of appeal, undated. Judicial proceedings. Annex to initial petition on Juan 86 Ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, May 21, 1996. Judicial proceedings. Annex to initial petition on Juan Preckel. Preckel. 87 Ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, May 21, 1996. Judicial proceedings. Annex to the initial petition on Juan Preckel. Article 280 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure of the Nation: (…) When the Supreme Court reviews a motion for leave of appeal to it, accepting the cause shall entail the case file being transferred to it. The Court, at its reasoned discretion, and merely by citing this provision, shall deny the motion, for lack of sufficient federal offense or when the issues raised are unsubstantial or lacking great significance. (...). 88 Ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, May 21, 1996. Judicial proceedings. Annex to initial petition on Juan 89 Appeal, May 6, 1992. Judicial proceedings. Annex to initial petition on Elba Clotilde Perrone. 90 Appeal, May 6, 1992. Judicial proceedings. Annex to initial petition on Elba Clotilde Perrone. 91 Judgment of the Chamber of Appeals, September 21, 1983. Judicial proceedings. Annex to initial petition on Elba Clotilde 92 Judgment of the Chamber of Appeals, September 21, 1983. Judicial proceedings. Annex to initial petition on Elba Clotilde Preckel. Perrone. Perrone. 12