justiciable" the submission of this defense linked to the violation of the constitutional guarantee of the right to a defense in court, it constitutes a violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights.146 86. On March 16, 2004, the Superior Court of Justice of Corrientes declared the issue of the composition of the Superior Court of Justice moot, 147 indicating the following: [In accordance with] duly notified Decree No. 10.641 of November 20, 2003, pursuant to which a new composition of this Court is announced, (...)[the] Public Prosecutor's Office establishes that the extraordinary appeal must be rejected, since the matter has become moot. (...) The pleading of the defense has indeed became moot, and therefore a decision must be made in that sense and the second instance proceedings must continue.148 87. On September 9, 2004, defense counsel filed an extraordinary federal appeal requesting that the case be referred to the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation.149 88. On May 31, 2005, the Superior Court of Justice of Corrientes declared the appeal inadmissible.150 The Superior Court held the following: it appears that defense counsel questions the decision of this Court, based on reasons of fact, evidence and law unrelated to the federal remedy. The viability of the extraordinary appeal requires, in the case of arbitrariness, the demonstration of an unequivocal departure from the law or an absolute lack of reasoning (...). Consequently, in view of the absence of such circumstances, the remedy is incapable enabling the requested review, which is reserved for the discussion and final decision of federal issues that are not apparent from the pleadings.151. 89. On June 14, 2005, defense counsel filed a recurso de queja with the Nation Supreme Court of Justice against the resolution of May 31, 2005. 152 The following day, defense counsel also filed an extraordinary federal appeal recusing the judges of that court, on the following grounds: The main argument of this recusation is that the aforementioned judges participated in the decision of May 31, 2015] that in Section No. 2 is subject to question; and obviously, in order to guarantee the right to a double instance, the same judges cannot hear and rule on the extraordinary federal remedy that is pleaded herein; this reiterate is basic and elemental to ensure the right to a double instance that must be observed in criminal proceedings as a "minimum guarantee" for "every person charged with crime" (...).153 146 Extraordinary Federal Appeal, July 3, 2003. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. Resolution No. 29 of the Superior Court of Justice of Corrientes, March 16, 2004. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 147 148 Resolution No. 29 of the Superior Court of Justice of Corrientes, March 16, 2004. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 149 Extraordinary Federal Appeal Motion, September 9, 2004. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. Resolution No. 64 of the Superior Court of Justice of Corrientes, May 31, 2005. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 150 151 Resolution No. 64 of the Superior Court of Justice of Corrientes, May 31, 2005. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 152 Recurso de queja with the National Supreme Court of Justice, June 14, 2005. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 2008. 153 2008. Extraordinary Federal Appeal Motion and Recusation, June 15, 2005. Annex to the Petitioner’s communiqué dated July 10, 20