60 182. In that respect, the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1972, in Article 40, provides that “[n]o judge can be disqualified from hearing a case without legal grounds” and that “the abstentions and challenges shall be processed and resolved according to the provisions of the Civil Procedure and the Judicial Organization Law [Ley de Organización Judicial].” Furthermore, Article 41 of that Code establishes that “[i]f a request for abstention is filed before a judge who considers such question of abstention to be illegal, that judge shall be obliged to hear the case and forward testimony of the necessary requirements in consultation before the Superior District Court.” 183. Moreover, Article 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure amended by Act 1760 refers to the grounds for abstention. Next article, namely article 4 [of that Code], related to the “obligation to abstain,” provides that “[t]he judge or the magistrate who is covered by any of grounds for abstention shall have to abstain himselfex officio, in the first legal act […], and that [o]nce the abstention is ordered, the judge or magistrate shall definitely not be allowed to participate in the proceeding and shall forward it to the next judge who was assigned to replace him by Law, even when the causes that originated it had disappeared.” The Court observes the following two provisions. Article 5 provides that “[i]f the judge, who is assigned to hear the proceeding, considers that the question of abstention is illegal, he shall refer it, on that day, to the next superior authority for its opinion […] without detriment to hear the case and proceed with the processing of the case.” Furthermore, article 6 establishes that “[i]f the abstention were to be declared illegal, a penalty shall be imposed on the judge or magistrate who filed the request, and the consulting judge shall proceed with the processing of the case until its conclusion;” in addition, “[i]f the abstention were to be declared legal, a penalty shall be imposed on the consulting judge or magistrate.” 184. It is possible to conclude from the foregoing paragraphs that the legislation established an a posteriori and immediate control over the abstentions presented by the judges, that is, only when the judge who later received the case file due to an abstention considered that abstention to be illegal, the issue shall be referred to a superior authority in order to determine as to its lawfulness; it is also possible to conclude that,, the mere fact of a possible sanction for the judge who consulted as to the legality of an abstention could have inhibited greater control over abstentions and their admissibility. 185. In the instant case, the Court shall not analyze whether the abstentions were declared illegal or not, given that it is not the main issue in the following analysis. However, the Tribunal highlights that the State forwarded information regarding different disciplinary proceedings against several judges, in which some of the abstentions were declared illegal. Nevertheless, in relation to what was mentioned in the foregoing paragraph, from the case file before the Tribunal it observed that, from the 111 recusals in total, only on three occasions several judges referred the recusals for consultation.222 186. The Court pays attention to the following series of facts. Previously, the Court has referred to a variety of abstentions presented by the judges of the First, Second, Third, 222 The First Instance Judge of Warnes filed a consultation on all the existing abstentions in the case file, following instructions of the Superior Court of the District of Santa Cruz, decree of September 10, 2003 (Case file 37/2000, Volume 9, folios 5067 and 13825); the Fifth First Instance Criminal Judge of Santa Cruz acquiesced to a challenge filed by Antonia Gladys Oroza and Rebeca Ibsen Castro, afther this, he sent the case file to the First First Instance Civil Judge of the Capital, who sent the consultation to the Superior Court of District of Santa Cruz, where it was sent to the First Criminal Chamber (Case file 37/2000, Volume 18, folios 7799 and 16559), and the Seventh First Instance Civil and Commercial Judge of Santa Cruz raised to consultation the abstentions presented by the First, Second, Thrid, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth First Instance Civil and Commerical Judges of Santa Cruz (Case file 37/2000, Volume 21, folios 9080 and 17880).