92. In turn, on August 30, 2000, the SCJBA dismissed the appeal, arguing that the jury created by Article 182 of said Constitution for the impeachment of judges is not a regular judicial tribunal of inferior rank to this Supreme Court but a special, independent body that exercises powers of a political nature that concern the responsibility of those submitted to it, which escapes judicial oversight. On the other hand, on November 29, 2000, the SCJBA denied the federal appeal filed in its entirety, holding that the appeal did not meet minimum requirements. In particular, it indicated that "they only reflect his personal disagreement with those of the tribunal that passed judgment". Regarding the unconstitutionality, it found that it had not been alleged in the appeal for annulment filed previously. 93. With respect to the motion for reconsideration before the CSJN, it was dismissed because the appellant had not demonstrated a violation of Article 18 of the Constitution. Regarding the request for unconstitutionality, the court reiterated that such unconstitutionality had not been formulated in the REN. Consequently, it considered that the "federal question is belated insofar as the grievance invoked is due to the appellant's discretionary conduct". Regarding the allegations related to the grievances caused by the evaluation of evidence by the Impeachment Jury, it referred to the "procedural and local nature of the issue raised and the lack of clear, unequivocal and conclusive demonstration of the impairment of constitutional guarantees". 94. With respect to the foregoing, this Court notes that Mr. Rico raised different claims of unconstitutionality in the Special appeal for nullity and the Federal extraordinary appeal. In the former, he referred to the unconstitutionality of the ineligibility sanction applied to him, while in the latter, he only refers to the unconstitutionality of the non-appealability of the decisions of Impeachment Juries established in Law 8085. Consequently, the considerations of the SCJBA and the CSJN on the lack of consistency of this argument on the two different charges of unconstitutionality that were presented in those appeals reflect what happened. 95. On this point, it has already been mentioned that in accordance with the jurisprudence of the CSJN, "decisions in matters of so-called political trials or impeachment of judges in the provincial sphere, issued by bodies outside the local powers, constitute a justiciable matter when a violation of due process is invoked by the interested party" and that "such decisions do not escape judicial review by those powers nor the subsequent intervention of the Court by means of the extraordinary appeal" (supra para. 17). 96. In turn, the CSJN held that "whoever seeks the exercise of such scrutiny must demonstrate in a clear, unequivocal and conclusive manner, flagrantly, a serious breach to due process norms and the guarantee of due process and legal defense which, also, carries sufficient relevance to vary the fate of the case based on the direct and immediate relationship that the federal issue invoked must have with the subject matter of the trial" (supra para. 17). 97. In the present case, the SCJBA indicated in its decision rejecting the REF filed by Mr. Rico that the appeal does not meet the minimum requirements “of proper justification set out in article 15 of Law 48, since the arguments of the appellant only reflect his personal disagreement with those of the tribunal that passed judgment." Likewise, the CSJN pointed out, in its decision on the motion for reconsideration, that "the appellant has not complied with one of the requirements for [the appeal] to be pertinent; that of demonstrating that Article 18 of the National Constitution has been violated in the proceedings". It further added that the decision of the Impeachment Jury was appealed by Mr. Rico "due to the evaluation of the evidence". In this regard, the CSJN stated that the "procedural and local nature of the issue raised and the lack of clear, unequivocal and conclusive demonstration of the impairment of constitutional guarantees invoked prevent [...] the change of fate of the litis".60 60 CSJN decision of August 28, 2001 (evidence file, folio 442). -23-