(...) It should not be forgotten, on the other hand, that by virtue of Art. 3, in fine, of Law No. 25.236, on the Federal Intervention of the Province of Corrientes, a temporary status was imposed on the members of the judicial branch. As a result, the removal of some magistrates and judicial officials was legitimized, while the rest were tacitly confirmed by Law No. 25343, which exempts the Judiciary from the extension of the intervention.176 100. On June 14, 2001, defense counsel filed a cassation appeal before the Criminal Chamber No.2.177 In that appeal, it added that "it is crystal clear an objective definition in the biased pronouncements that the Magistrate maintains with tenacious anger that sinks its roots in strong political content and that is undoubtedly obvious to the detriment of the impartiality that must characterize the judge." The next day, the Criminal Chamber No.2 decided to declare the appeal inadmissible. 178 The Chamber argued that: We consider that the appeal brought before this court is inadmissible (Arts. 469 and 480, first para Code of Criminal Procedure) due to the fact that the resolution at issue is not specifically intended as an object of an appeal of this kind (Article 494 Code of Criminal Procedure).179 101. In light of this decision, Mr. Romero’s defense filed a recurso de queja. 180 On August 14, 2001, the Superior Court of Justice rejected the queja due to the "lack of a federal question".181 The Superior Court indicated the following: The lack of requirement of a "Natural Judge" is a subjective assessment, devoid of reality, and the treatment of the Judge with the qualifications of "Special" and "covered", border on the lack of decorum towards the bench. (…) There is no violation of the general and subsidiary rules on precedence either, which are the exclusive responsibility of this Superior Court, such as the power to extend, reduce or excuse the involvement of the Judge, without affecting the guarantee of the "Natural Judge", since it only has as its foundation and consequence a better division of labor and administration of justice. Being that these decisions are final, and all legal deadlines for opposition have expired, it is impossible for the parties to modify at their will, the principals that protect legal certainty(...).182 V. ANALYSIS OF THE MERITS 102. In light of the positions of the parties and the established facts, the Commission will carry out its legal analysis offering its view, first of all, on the preventive detention of Mr. Romero Feris and, second, on the alleged violations of due process and the effectiveness of the remedies filed to challenge such alleged violations. [… continuation] 175 Decision No.125 of Criminal Chamber No.2, May 31, 2001. Annex to petitioner’s communiqué of August 24, 2001. 176 Decision No.125 of Criminal Chamber No.2, May 31, 2001. Annex to petitioner’s communiqué of August 24, 2001. 177 Cassation Appeal, June 14, 2001. Annex to petitioner’s communiqué of August 24, 2001. 178 Resolution No. 242 of Criminal Chamber No.2. Annex to petitioner’s communiqué of August 24, 2001. 179 Resolution No. 242 of Criminal Chamber No.2. Annex to petitioner’s communiqué of August 24, 2001. 180 Recurso de queja, June 21, 2001. Annex to petitioner’s communiqué of August 24, 2001. 181 Decision No. 111 of the Superior Court of Justice of Corrientes, August 14, 2001. Annex to petitioner’s communiqué of August 24, 2001. 182 24, 2001. Order No. 111 of the Superior Court of Justice of Corrientes, August 14, 2001. Annex to petitioner’s communiqué of August 24