are not subject to appeal before another body, except as provided in Article 33. Petitions for clarification and reversal are admitted, which will be resolved by the Jury within five days, by means of a well-founded order." For its part, Article 33 establishes: "against the final judgment of the Jury, in addition to the appeal for clarification and reversal, an action of unconstitutionality may be filed, which shall be resolved by the plenary of the Court." None of these remedies was specified in the JEM's ruling as a means of appealing the removal decision. However, both appeals were filed by Mr. Nissen Pessolani and were rejected. 88. The remedy of reconsideration107 and clarification108, by its nature and legal configuration, does not allow a comprehensive review of the resolutions of the JEM, nor does it allow allegations of violations of due process rights, so it cannot be considered a suitable remedy. 89. The unconstitutionality action was filed by Mr. Nissen Pessolani before the Supreme Court of Justice on April 22, 2003. In it, the alleged victim claimed that Judgment No. 02/03 of the JEM violated his right to defend himself in a trial, the guarantees of due process, the principle of equality before the law, the right to work and to job security, the division of powers, and the guarantee to be judged by competent, independent, and impartial Courts and Judges.109 Likewise, by means of a brief filed on April 25, 2003, it broadened the action of unconstitutionality against the judgment that declared the appeal for clarification and reinstatement without merit. In the processing of this action of unconstitutionality, no judge who was a member of the JEM participated; likewise, the recusal presented by the alleged victim was processed and two judges who were disqualified from hearing the case were replaced. Finally, by means of Judgment No. 915, the Supreme Court of Justice rejected the action of unconstitutionality.110 90. The Supreme Court's judgment made a reference to the different arguments presented by Mr. Nissen Pessolani. In effect, it referred in general terms to the alleged violations of the right to defense, the principle of congruence and the alleged arbitrariness of the latter. However, this decision did not address the allegations of partiality of the president and other members of the JEM and, thus, did not allow to remedy the evident violation of due process previously examined by the Court (supra para. 76). 91. Thus, taking into account the violation of the guarantee of an impartial judge, as stated in the previous chapter (supra paras. 64 to 76), the Court considers that Mr. Nissen Pessolani did not have an effective judicial remedy that would allow for the review of the judgment by which he was removed from office. Indeed, an effective appeal cannot be reduced to a mere formality, but must examine the reasons invoked by the applicant and expressly state them. Thus, this Court considers that, although the According to Article 390 of the Code of Civil Procedure, "the remedy of reconsideration only proceeds against orders of mere formality and against interlocutory orders that do not cause irreparable lien, so that the same judge or court that issued them may revoke them by a ruling to the contrary." 107 According to Article 387 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the purpose of this appeal is that the judge or court "a) corrects any material error; b) clarifies any obscure expression, without altering the substance of the decision; and c) makes up for any omission in which it may have incurred on some of the claims deduced and discussed in the litigation." It is clearly stated that "in no case shall the substance of the decision be altered." 108 Cf. Action of unconstitutionality filed by Alejandro Nissen Pessolani before the Supreme Court of Justice against Judgment No. 02/03 of the JEM on April 22, 2004 (case file of evidence, folios 86 to 119). 109 110 Cf. Judgment No. 915 issued by the Supreme Court of Justice on June 16, 2004 (case file of evidence, folios 126 to 130). 28