time of the events, indicated that these requirements were not brought to the attention of the rest of the Jury. 70. Also, during the course of the proceedings before the JEM, the press disclosed that Prosecutor Nissen Pessolani had been investigating the alleged possession of a stolen vehicle by the president of the JEM since December 2002.83 71. On the other hand, according to witness Talavera Alegre, the initiation of proceedings against Prosecutor Nissen Pessolani as a result of the complaint filed by C.P.O. was not brought to the attention of the rest of the Jury, which can be considered as another indication of the personal interest that the president of the JEM had in the case. Thus, the measure ordering the initiation of an impeachment against the prosecutor was only signed by the president of the JEM,84 which is contrary to Article 11 of Law 1084, since the power to order an impeachment is an exclusive power of the Jury.85 However, this irregularity was not denounced by the alleged victim in the appeal for reversal against this measure.86 It was not until August 20, 2002, that Luis Talavera Alegre, then member of the Jury, filed a brief requesting the nullity of the impeachment due to the irregularity of its initial act.87 However, taking into account that this brief was submitted more than five months after the event and that, after this measure, the other members of the Jury signed the orders, the JEM considered that there was a tacit confirmation of the act and that, consequently, there was no need to decree nullity of the proceeding.88 72. This Court holds as a proven fact that the president of the JEM was in possession of a vehicle under investigation by Prosecutor Nissen and, moreover, had requested details of the investigations of the cases prior to hearing Prosecutor Nissen's disciplinary case before the JEM. In spite of this, he did not recuse himself from hearing the case against Mr. Nissen Pessolani. From elements of the case file, it is evident that he only abstained from signing judgment No. 02/03 of April 7, 200389; however, he participated in the other acts of the proceeding, including signing the measure initiating the process90 83 Cf. Newspaper article " [G.D.] investigated for holding a mau car "ABC newspaper, April 4, 2003 (case file of evidence, folio 2726). Newspaper article " [G.D.] accused of having a mau car" ABC newspaper, April 8, 2003 (case file of evidence, folio 2727). This article reports that "The president of the Chamber of Deputies and of the Jury for the Impeachment of Magistrates, [G.D], was charged yesterday for the possession of a luxurious "mau" vehicle by the prosecutor Alejandro Nissen, 10 minutes before Prosecutor was notified of his removal." 84 Cf. Providence signed by the president of the JEM on March 18, 2002 (case file of evidence, folio 3020). Cf. Article 11 of Law no. 1084 "It is incumbent upon the Jury, in accordance with the procedure established in the present law, to try the members of the Courts of Appeal of any jurisdiction, other Judges and those who exercise the Public Prosecutor's Office as Agents and Prosecuting Attorneys." By way of contrast, the initial act of the second proceeding before the JEM against Mr. Nissen Pessolani was signed by five members of the JEM, including the then President O.G.D. (Interlocutory Order No. 12/03 issued by the Jury for the Impeachment of Magistrates of May 16, 2003 in the case "[L.H.A.] v. Ab. Alejandro Nissen, Agent Public Prosecutor in Criminal Matters of the Capital City s/Impeachment, case file of evidence, folios 4368 to 4370). 85 Cf. Appeal filed by Alejandro Nissen Pessolani before the JEM on April 5, 2002 (case file of evidence, folios 3040 to 3046). This appeal only raised the problem that the economic solvency of the complainant had not been accredited. 86 Cf. Brief submitted by Luis Talavera Alegre before the president of the JEM of Magistrates on August 20, 2002 (case file of evidence, folio 3406). 87 88 Cf. Interlocutory Order No. 06/03 issued by the JEM on March 25, 2003 (case file of evidence, folios 3574 and 3575). 89 Cf. Judgment No. 02/03 issued by the JEM on April 7, 2003 (case file of evidence, folio 3618). 90 Cf. Providence issued by the president of the JEM on March 18, 2002 (case file of evidence, folio 3020). 23