the Republic and violated cardinal principles of the legal system.”66 50. Justices who had previously disqualified themselves from hearing the actions of unconstitutionality filed by the presumed victims (supra para. 43) intervened in the issue of Resolution No. 2382. Also, this Court was not informed and is unaware of whether the said resolution was issued in response to the filing of any action or contestation. D.4. Appeals for clarification filed in relation to Judgments Nos. 951 and 952 51. On January 4, 2010, the Prosecutor General filed appeals for clarification against Judgments Nos. 951 and 952 of December 30, 2009. When filing the appeals, he requested, inter alia, an indication of “which state organ would be responsible for implementing” the orders to reinstate Messrs. Ríos Ávalos and Fernández Gadea as justices of the Supreme Court of Justice.67 52. On February 1, 2010, Bonifacio Ríos Ávalos and Carlos Fernández Gadea filed separate appeals for clarification in relation to Judgment No. 951, and Judgment No. 952, respectively. In their appeals, they argued that the Constitutional Chamber “ha[d] failed to rule on the procedural costs […]; therefore, a ruling [was] important […] in order to make good this omission.”68 53. On September 2, 2019, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice delivered Judgment No. 737, declaring that the appeal for clarification filed by the Prosecutor General was “[inadmissible]” and admitting the appeal filed by Mr. Ríos Ávalos, both with regard to Judgment No. 951. The decision established that, with regard to the procedural costs, “each party sh[ould] cover its own expenses.”69 54. Regarding the appeals for clarification filed by the Prosecutor General and Mr. Fernández Gadea against Judgment No. 952, the case file contains no record that they have been decided.70 Cf. Resolution No. 2382 of the Supreme Court of Justice of January 5, 2010 (evidence file, volume I, annex 12 to the Merits Report, folios 153 to 155). 67 Cf. Brief filing appeal for clarification submitted by the Prosecutor General, which is included in the file of the actions of unconstitutionality filed by Bonifacio Ríos Avalos against Resolutions Nos. 122 and 134 of the Senate of the Republic of Paraguay (evidence file, volume V, annex 8.4. to the answering brief, folios 11431 to 11433), and Brief filing appeal for clarification submitted by the Prosecutor General, which is included in the file of the actions of unconstitutionality filed by Carlos Fernández Gadea against Resolutions Nos. 122 and 134 of the Senate of the Republic of Paraguay (evidence file, volume V, annex 8.4. to the answering brief, folios 12677 to 12679). 68 Cf. Brief filing appeal for clarification submitted by the petitioner, which is included in the file of the actions of unconstitutionality filed by Bonifacio Ríos Avalos against Resolutions Nos. 122 and 134 of the Senate of the Republic of Paraguay (evidence file, volume V, annex 8.4. to the answering brief, folio 11439), and Brief filing appeal for clarification submitted by the petitioner, which is included in the file of the actions of unconstitutionality filed by Carlos Fernández Gadea against Resolutions Nos. 122 and 134 of the Senate of the Republic of Paraguay (evidence file, volume V, annex 8.4. to the answering brief, folio 12693). 69 Cf. Judgment No. 737 of September 2, 2019, delivered by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, which is included in the file of the actions of unconstitutionality filed by Bonifacio Ríos Avalos against Resolutions Nos. 122 and 134 of the Senate of the Republic of Paraguay (evidence file, volume V, annex 8.4. to the answering brief, folios 11737 to 11739). On September 9, 2019, the Constitutional Chamber, in Judgment No. 738, “clarified, ex officio, Judgment No. 737,” to the effect that the appeals for clarification had been filed with regard to Judgment No. 951, and not as had been indicated erroneously. Cf. File of the actions of unconstitutionality filed by Bonifacio Ríos Avalos against Resolutions Nos. 122 and 134 of the Senate of the Republic of Paraguay (evidence file, volume V, annex 8.4. to the answering brief, folio 11743 and 11744). 70 Cf. File of the actions of unconstitutionality filed by Carlos Fernández Gadea against Resolutions Nos. 122 and 134 of the Senate of the Republic of Paraguay (evidence file, volume V, annex 8.4. to the answering brief, folios 11789 and 12890). 66 17