76. Finally, he reiterated his submission regarding the unconstitutionality of the punishment of ineligibility imposed, since he considered that the penalty, envisaged in Article 45 of Law 8085, ran counter to the Provincial Statute and the National Constitution.42 77. On November 29, 2000, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Province of Buenos Aires denied the federal appeal lodged, saying that "decisions declaring appeals filed with local tribunals inadmissible do not, as a rule, warrant the activation of recourse to review under Article 14 of Law 48, especially in cases such as this where the appeal does not meet the minimum requirements of proper justification set out in article 15 of Law 48, since the arguments of the appellant only reflect his personal disagreement with those of the tribunal that passed judgment.”43 78. The Supreme Court of the Province of Buenos Aires also denied the unconstitutionality motion presented, arguing that “the claim that Article 45 of Law 8085 is unconstitutional was only specifically submitted in the special federal appeal, said challenge having been omitted in the nullity appeal presented to this Supreme Court, in which only an ineffective reservation was formulated.”44 4. Motion for reconsideration of dismissal of appeal 79. On February 7, 2001, the alleged victim filed an application for reconsideration for denial of the special federal appeal with the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, arguing that the Tribunal committed a violation by declaring in the denial of the special appeal that the decisions of the Impeachment Jury are not subject to appeal. He also reiterated his request that Article 45 of Law 8085 be declared unconstitutional because it “bans access to review” and "imposes the punishment of permanent ineligibility on dismissed judges.”45 He also argued that the punished conduct was not consistent with the faults contained in paragraphs e, f, and k of Article 21 of Law 8085.46 Finally, he alleged a series of violations of due process, including the refusal to receive evidence in his defense.47 80. On August 28, 2001, the Supreme Court of Justice refused the motion. It said that, although the Court has hewn to the doctrine that decisions in so-called trials of magistrates at the provincial level are 42Annex 7. Special federal appeal, September 22, 2000, Annex 7 to the initial petition of March 4, 2002. Annex 8 Ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Province of Buenos Aires, November 29, 2000. Annex 8 to the initial petition of March 4, 2002. The Commission notes that Articles 14 and 15 of Law No. 48 provide as follows: Art. 14. Once a proceeding has been instituted before the Courts of the Province, it shall be adjudicated and disposed of in the provincial jurisdiction and final judgments pronounced by the superior courts of the province may only be appealed to the Supreme Court in the following cases: 1. When the validity of a treaty, of an act of Congress, or of an authority exercised in the name of the nation is called into question in the dispute, and the decision has gone against its validity. 2. When the validity of a provincial law, decree, or authority is called into question on the grounds of running counter to the National Constitution, treaties, or acts of Congress, and the decision has been in favor of the validity of the provincial law or authority. 3. When the soundness of any clause of the Constitution, treaty, or act of Congress, or of a mandate exercised in the name of the nation is called into question and the decision goes against the validity of the title, right, privilege, or exemption that is founded on said clause and is the subject of litigation. Art. 15. When the appeal authorized by the preceding article is lodged, the complaint shall be inferred from what is prescribed therein, such that its justification appears in the record and offers a direct and immediate resolution of the questions of validity of the disputed provisions of the Constitution, laws, treaties, or mandates, it being understood that the provincial courts’ interpretation or application of the civil, criminal, business, and mining codes shall not give rise to this remedy by virtue of being acts of Congress, in accordance with Article 67 (11) of the Constitution. Law No. 48. Jurisdiction and Competence of the National Courts. 43 44 Annex 8 Ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Province of Buenos Aires, November 29, 2000. Annex 8 to the initial petition of March 4, 2002. 45Annex 9. Motion for reconsideration of dismissal of appeal presented by the alleged victim, February 7, 2001. Annex 2 to the initial petition of March 4, 2002. 46Annex 9. Motion for reconsideration of dismissal of appeal presented by the alleged victim, February 7, 2001. Annex 2 to the initial petition of March 4, 2002. 47Annex 9. Motion for reconsideration of dismissal of appeal presented by the alleged victim, February 7, 2001. Annex 2 to the initial petition of March 4, 2002.