accuse.”35 He also argued that the ancillary penalty of ineligibility was irrational and arbitrary, particularly since it could be imposed indefinitely.36 72. Finally, he alleged another series of due process violations, such as the extension of the time limit for the preliminary discovery and the rejection of evidence for the defense offered by the alleged victim. As regards the rejection of the evidence for the defense, he said that the presentation was denied of the only witness who really mattered for the accused, Auxiliary Judge Martínez Grijalba, who was ejected from her place of work by their colleague Judge Marigo “for failing to conduct a required interrogation, a minor matter.”37 He added that the testimony was also refused of the medical doctors Mariano Castex, Barriocanal, and Fernández Amallo, who would have refuted the "supposed profile of psychosis or insanity” of Eduardo Rico, with the argument that they were “manifestly overabundant.”38 73. On August 30, 2000, the Supreme Court of the Province of Buenos Aires turned down the appeal, arguing that “the jury created by Article 182 of said Constitution for the impeachment of judges is not the "court of justice" to which the aforementioned precepts refer, as it is not a regular judicial tribunal of inferior rank to this Supreme Court but a special, independent body that exercises powers of a political nature that concern the responsibility of those submitted to it, which escapes judicial oversight.”39 3. Special federal appeal 74. On September 22, 2000, the alleged victim filed a special federal appeal with the Supreme Court of Justice of the Province of Buenos Aires, contending that the argument that the decisions of the Impeachment Jury were not subject to appeal had been refuted on repeated occasions by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation. In particular, he mentioned that in one case the Supreme Court enabled the review of decisions, saying that "notwithstanding the opinion of the undersigned regarding the unappealability of the decisions of the Impeachment Tribunal ..., given that the Supreme Court of Justice decided that it is incumbent upon the Supreme Court of Justice of the Province of Buenos Aires to examine any challenges on constitutional grounds brought against the decision of the Impeachment Jury by means of special appeals at the local level, said doctrine should be adhered to.”40 75. Furthermore, he argued that the decision of the Impeachment Jury violated due process by ordering his dismissal and ineligibility for public office, in spite of the fact that the legal requirements of classification of the conduct as an offense, unlawfulness, and culpability required by the law were not met, and because of "the nonexistent or insufficient evidence of the supposedly proven facts.”41 He also argued again that he was denied the possibility of presenting evidence in his defense and that the time limit for the preliminary discovery was unduly extended. 35 Law No. 24.430, Constitution of the Argentine Nation. 36Annex 5. Special appeal for nullity, July 6, 2000. Annex 4 to the initial petition of March 4, 2002. 37Annex 4. Special motion for preliminary decision (Planteo de previo y especial pronunciamiento). Nullity of the decisions of the Office of Judicial Oversight. Application for nullity of decision on admissibility of evidence. Suggest serious procedural irregularities and violations of constitutional guarantees before the Judicial Impeachment Jury, May 18, 2000. Annex 13 to the initial petition of March 4, 2002. 38Annex 4. Special motion for preliminary decision (Planteo de previo y especial pronunciamiento). Nullity of the decisions of the Office of Judicial Oversight. Application for nullity of decision on admissibility of evidence. Suggest serious procedural irregularities and violations of constitutional guarantees before the Judicial Impeachment Jury, May 18, 2000. Annex 13 to the initial petition of March 4, 2002. 39 Annex 6. Ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Province of Buenos Aires, August 30, 2000. Annex 6 to the initial petition of March 4, 2002. 40Annex 7. Special federal appeal, September 22, 2000, Annex 7 to the initial petition of March 4, 2002. 41Annex 7. Special federal appeal, September 22, 2000, Annex 7 to the initial petition of March 4, 2002, p. 31.