by the Constitution. In this specific case, it was noted that “a series of situations are evident indicating that Argentine citizenship was obtained by fraudulent means because there was no legal way of obtaining it.” 42 39. On November 2, 1994, Ms. Habbal’s attorneys filed an appeal for annulment. 43 The State Prosecutor asked for the appeal be rejected. 44 On June 20, 1995, the Mendoza Court of Appeals rejected the appeal filed against the decision of the Acting Federal Judge. 45 In the considering paragraphs of its decision, the Court of Appeals found that there were insufficient grounds to annul the judgment, as the matters in question were not significant enough to affect the right to a defense or invalidate the judgment. The Court of Appeals also maintained that any shortcomings that Resolution 1088/92 might have did not apply to the proceedings as such, since the lower court’s decision to revoke Ms. Habbal’s citizenship was not based on them. 46 40. Ms. Habbal’s attorneys filed an extraordinary appeal for judicial review with the Federal Court of Appeals. 47 The Court Prosecutor was of the opinion that the appropriate course of action would be to “accept and allow the appeal,” as the person involved had not been notified, there had been no ruling on preliminary matters, and it was a matter of public interest. 48 On October 18, 1995, the Federal Court of Appeals of the Province of Mendoza rejected the extraordinary appeal filed by Ms. Habbal’s attorneys. It held that there was no evidence of the existence of a “federal case,” although the formal requirements of the appeal had been met. 49 On November 3, 1995, Ms. Habbal’s attorneys filed a remedy of complaint with the Supreme Court of Justice. 50 On February 27, 1996, the Supreme Court of Justice ruled that the extraordinary appeal was inadmissible. 51 41. Ms. Raghda Habbal traveled to Argentina on a number of occasions in the years 1994, 1995 and 1996. In Argentina’s National Register of Arrivals and Departures, Ms. Habbal’s 42 Cf. Lower court judgment delivered by Federal Judge No. 2 of Mendoza, dated October 27, 1994 (evidence file, folios 76 to 80). 43 Cf. Note submitted by Carlos Varela Álvarez on November 2, 1994 (evidence file, folio 82), and the arguments put forward in the appeal for annulment by attorneys Carlos Varela Álvarez and Diego Lavado dated February 1995 (evidence file, evidence, folio 84). 44 Cf. Opposing arguments of the State Prosecutor (evidence file, folio 2169). Cf. Judgment of Division 8 of the Federal Court of Appeals of Mendoza, dated June 30, 1995 (Evidence file, folio 104). 45 46 Cf. Judgment of Division 8 of the Federal Court of Appeals of Mendoza, dated June 30, 1995 (evidence file, folios 104 to 112). 47 Cf. Extraordinary appeal, dated August 7, 1995 (evidence file, folio 2200). 48 Cf. Opposing arguments presented by the State Prosecutor (evidence file, folio 1406). 49 Cf. Judgment of the Federal Court of Appeals, dated October 18, 1995 (evidence file, folio 2232). 50 Cf. Remedy of complaint filed with the Supreme Court of Justice on November 3, 1995 (evidence file, folio 114). 51 Cf. Decision of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated February 27, 1996 (evidence file, folio 126). 13