recusation filed (...) is inadmissible on the grounds that the presentation does not satisfy the aforementioned regulations. Invoking, de facto, a reason that is not foreseen as a cause of challenge in our legal system involves a disregard for the aforementioned procedural rules.129 77. On October 31, 2001, Criminal Chamber No. 2 delivered judgment No. 116, sentencing Mr. Romero to three years and six months in prison and seven years disqualification for perpetrating the offense of abuse of authority. 130 The Chamber also acceded to the civil action for damages by ordering Mr. Romero, jointly and severally, to pay the sum of 222,500 pesos.131 78. On November 27, 2001, defense counsel filed a cassation appeal against the judgment given by the Chamber, 132 requesting that the issue be to the Superior Provincial Court of Justice. 133 The IACHR notes that the documents submitted by the petitioners do not contain the decision on the appeal. 79. On February 6, 2002, defense counsel filed a nullity motion with the Superior Court of Justice of the Province of Corrientes, 134 on the grounds that all of the centered that the totality instructing activities and procedural steps carried out in the case by the then Instructing Magistrate No. 1 were illegal, in so far as his appointment violated the guarantee of due process and the principle of the natural judge.135 80. On February 12, 2002, the Attorney General of Corrientes submitted a brief to the Superior Court of Justice, stating: In the opinion of this Office, the matter brought under consideration is an issue that must be dealt with through an independent proceeding from the main one (see Article 173, last paragraph, 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), and therefore it is incumbent on your Superior Court to order the separation of this motion for nullity and to establish a new proceeding, with the main case continuing its proper course.136 81. On February 20, 2003, defense counsel filed a motion for annulment with the Superior Court of Justice of Corrientes, 137 requesting the composition of the Superior Court of Justice with corresponding new legal members. 138 In view of the fact that judges Elpidio Monzón and Clemente Maldonado had not been appointed in accordance with the procedure established by the Constitution of the Province. Defense counsel argued that: The situation creates a legal problem, subject to the sanction of absolute nullity. The legal situation created by the appointment of the indicated judges without respecting the 129 Resolution No. 356 of Criminal Chamber No.2 of Corrientes, August 17, 2001. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 130 Sentence No. 116 of Criminal Chamber No.2, October 31, 2001. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 131 Sentence No. 116 of Criminal Chamber No.2, October 31, 2001. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 132 Appeal, November 27, 2001. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 133 Appeal, November 27, 2001. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 134 Nullity Motion, February 6, 2002. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 135 Nullity Motion, February 6, 2002. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 136 Opinion of the Attorney General of Corrientes, February 12, 2002. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 137 Nullity Motion, February 20, 2003. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 138 Nullity Motion, February 20, 2003. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 2008. 18