As to the request for dismissal by defense counsel, (...), both the active and cognitive elements of the intention attributed to Romero Feris, as author of the offense of embezzling property, have been duly proven in the case (...).98 (…) Regarding the request for transfer to trial and for the record of the case, I have concluded to reject the motion of the defense on the basis that there is sufficient evidence in the file at the present procedural stage to support the remittal to trial, where a final decision will be made about the facts, the authorship and the evidence produced.99 62. On April 16, 2004, Mr. Romero Feris’ defense counsel filed a motion for nullity and subsidiary appeal against the decision of Instructing Magistrate No.1. 100 On June 28, 2004, Instructing Magistrate No.1 rejected in all its parts the nullity motion and declared the subsidiary appeal inadmissible. 101 The Judge reasoned in the following way: It should be borne in mind that the "Exception" is not a remedy available to the accused impede the basis of the criminal investigation. For this reason the accused cannot by way of exception divert the very foundation of the criminal investigation (...). There is no provision prescribing the nullity of the judicial order issued in the time and manner that it was (...) and I cannot detect the existence of a constitutional violation or injury to any right of the accused. Therefore I can conclude that there is no legitimate violation of the right to a defense and that the contested order is fully valid and carried out in accordance with express procedural norms of the Province, as well as the Constitution.102 63. On February 14, 2005, Criminal Chamber No. 2 issued three decisions, rejecting the appeal, and confirming the decision of March 18, 2004.103 64. On August 4, 2005, defense counsel recused the composition of Criminal Chamber no. 2, 104 on the following grounds: The present recusation is based on the challenge to the Court’s impartiality in the case-file: "ROMERO FERIS, RAUL ROLANDO; ORTEGA LUCIA PLACIDA; ISETTA, JORGE EDUARDO AND MAGRAN ALBERO ON/CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY - CAPITAL" Case No. 5014 that is before this same Chamber with the same composition. (...) the recusation in Case No. 5014 was based on the fact that the judges ... had advanced their opinion on matters that were closely related to the thema decidendum in that proceeding ... obviously, that the constitution of a single court means that, when challenged for its impartiality in a particular case, the effect pervades all the cases in which the contested Court intervenes (...)105 98 Order No. 226 of the Instructing Magistrate No.1 of the City of Corrientes, April 24, 2004. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 99 Order No. 226 of the Instructing Magistrate No.1 of the City of Corrientes, April 24, 2004. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 100 Motion for Nullity and Appeal, April 16, 2004. 101 Decision No. 414 of the Instructing Magistrate No.1 of the City of Corrientes, June 28, 2004. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 102 Decision No. 414 of the Instructing Magistrate No.1 of the City of Corrientes, June 28, 2004. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 103 Decision No. 17 of Criminal Chamber No.2 of the City of Corrientes, February 14, 2005. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 104 Recusation with Cause, August 4, 2005. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 105 Recusation with Cause, August 4, 2005. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 14