2011. 147 Subsequently, after notice had been served to the parties, on September 26, 2011, the injured party filed a petition on the unconstitutionality of Law 13,153. 148 In addition, in the context of the said case, on September 29, 2011, two of the judges who were members of Chamber I decided, in a procedural decision, to recuse themselves from hearing the case. On November 8, 2011, the remaining judges of Chamber I decided to reject the recusal and, subsequently, the accused’s defense counsel filed a remedy of cassation against this last decision. This remedy was granted on December 12, 2011, and, on June 7, 2012, Chamber III of the Criminal Cassation Court of the province of Buenos Aires admitted the recusal filed. Consequently, on August 6, 2012, Chamber I of the Criminal Appeals and Guarantees Chamber of the La Plata Judicial Department was reinstated with a new composition and, on August 13, 2012, the said chamber received the proceedings carried out up until that time. 149 72. Regarding the petition filed by the injured party, in a decision of August 30, 2012, Chamber I of the Criminal Appeals and Guarantees Chamber decided that the declaration of the unconstitutionality of Law 13,153 was inadmissible and indicated its lack of competence to intervene in the substantiation of the oral proceeding; accordingly, the case was assigned to the “Criminal Appeals and Guarantees Chamber” for the random designation of a criminal court. 150 On October 3, 2012, the remedy of cassation filed by the injured party against the said decision was admitted, and the remedy was decided on May 7, 2013, by Chamber III of the Criminal Cassation Court of the province of Buenos Aires. 151 To counter this ruling the injured party filed appeals on unconstitutionality, nullity, and inapplicability of the law, which were forwarded to the Supreme Court of Justice of the province of Buenos Aires on May 30, 2013. 152 Subsequently, on June 18, 2013, the Supreme Court of Justice of the province of Buenos Aires issued a ruling in which it “partially admit[ted] the special appeal 147 Cf. Communication of October 29, 2013, addressed by the President of the Criminal Appeals and Guarantees Chamber to the Deputy Secretary for the protection of human rights of the Human Rights Secretariat of the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights (merits file, folios 1449, 1479 and 1480). 148 The injured party presented, inter alia, the following “general and specific reasons”: “[t]he former indicated that the proceeding under Law 3,589 openly violated the principles that underlie the adversarial procedure and, above all, those conceived based on the international treaties incorporated into [the] Constitution […], therefore requesting that the proceeding [should be] held under Law 11,922 and before new jurisdictional organs installed following […Law 12,060,] in this case and in keeping with the stage of the proceedings, a criminal court”; “[t]he latter refer[red] to the intervention and participation allowed to the injured party in the proceeding regulated by Law 11,922 and the law amending it (Law 13,943), which gives him a greater role and prioritizes him, contrary to the previous system which, in his opinion, subjects him to being a contingent party.” Cf. Decision of August 30, 2012, of Chamber I of the Criminal Appeals and Guarantees Chamber (merits file, folios 1458 to 1480). 149 Cf. Communication of October 29, 2013, addressed by the President of the Criminal Appeals and Guarantees Chamber to the Deputy Secretary for the protection of human rights of the Human Rights Secretariat of the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights (merits file, folios 1450 and 1451). 150 Cf. Decision of August 30, 2012, of Chamber I of the Criminal Appeals and Guarantees Chamber (merits file, folios 1479 and 1480). 151 On May 7, 2013 Chamber III of the Criminal Cassation Court of the province of Buenos Aires issued an “Agreement” in which: (i) it declared the nullity of the lack of competence decided by the Criminal Appeals and Guarantees Chamber; (ii) it rejected the appeal on the unconstitutionality of Law 13,153; (iii) it informed the Criminal Appeals and Guarantees Chamber that it should, urgently, summon the parties to a hearing so that they could define the evidence that should be collected in the necessary investigation and to determine the essential preliminary hearing, and (iv) it ordered the immediate intervention of the La Plata Prosecutor General in order to appoint the agents who should conduct a complete, impartial and effective investigation in order to determine the masterminds and perpetrators who intervened in the preparation and execution of the murder, as well as in the alteration or disappearance of evidence, and failures to carry out the corresponding investigations and to prepare the respective reports. Cf. Agreement of May 7, 2013, issued by Chamber III of the Criminal Cassation Court (merits file, folios 1484 to 1494). 152 Cf. Communication of October 29, 2013, addressed by the President of the Criminal Appeals and Guarantees Chamber to the Deputy Secretary for the protection of human rights of the Human Rights Secretariat of the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights (merits file, folio 1452). 30