complainant’s signature in the reply to the appeal for reversal was false.27 Mr. C.P.O. denied these allegations and requested that Prosecutor Nissen Pessolani be suspended.28 Subsequently, the complainant appeared to acknowledge that the signatures on file were his own.29 38. On May 31, 2002, Mr. Nissen Pessolani challenged four members of the JEM, including its president, for alleged bias.30 Thus, on June 4, 2002, the hearing scheduled for that date was suspended.31 The challenge was ultimately rejected as unfounded on July 30, 2002,32 and the hearing was held on August 13, 2002.33 39. On August 20, 2002, Luis Talavera Alegre, member of the JEM, filed a brief requesting suspension of the impeachment and the nullity of the trial. He alleged that the procedure was initiated through an order of the president of the Jury and not by a resolution of the members, as set out in the regulations, and therefore considered that this was an irregular and illegal act that led to the nullity of the entire procedure.34 This nullity motion was rejected by the JEM on March 25, 2003. The motion was considered time-barred and the passage of time amounted to the tacit confirmation of the allegedly void act.35 Subsequently, Luis Talavera Alegre excused himself from hearing the case36 and was replaced by Senator E.M.S.A.37 27 Cf. Calligraphic expert opinion signed by the expert M.A.L.E. (case file of evidence, folios 3122 to 3133). The nature of this document and the basis for its issue is a disputed fact in this case. The document is addressed to the Prosecutor in Criminal Matters of Unit No. 10 Attorney Alejandro Nissen" and it is stated that it was made "in response to your note dated April 19, 2002, requesting that I perform a handwriting appraisal, within the Trial in Reference." The opinion concludes with the following sentence: "I request that the Prosecutor consider the task entrusted to me in this case as having been completed, from here on out leaving the use of this work for any purposes he considers pertinent, at his discretion." According to the State, the alleged victim ordered an official expert to carry out an expert opinion and incorporated it in his own. According to the representative, Mr. Nissen Pessolani requested that an independent expert make an opinion, who, among other professional activities, also performed expert work for the Public Prosecutor's Office. Questioned by one of the judges during the public hearing, Mr. Nissen Pessolani indicated that he did not remember having paid the expert, but clarified that the State did not make any payment for this expert opinion. 28 Cf. Brief filed by C.P.O. before the JEM on April 25, 2002 (case file of evidence, folios 3140 to 3142). 29 Cf. Act of appearance of the Secretary of the JEM of April 25, 2002 (case file of evidence, folio 3146). Cf. Recusal letter submitted by Alejandro Nissen Pessolani to the president of the JEM on May 31, 2002 (case file of evidence, folios 3297 to 3311). 30 31 Cf. Note detailing that the hearing had not been carried out, by the Secretary of the JEM of June 4, 2002 (case file of evidence, folio 3363). Cf. Interlocutory Order No. 10/02 issued by the JEM on the recusal motion filed by Attorney Alejandro Nissen Pessolani on July 30, 2002 (case file of evidence, folios 3745 to 3746). 32 33 Cf. Act of public and oral hearing No. 200 made before the JEM on August 13, 2002 (case file of evidence, folios 3408 to 3462). 34 Cf. Brief submitted by Luis Talavera Alegre before the president of the JEM on August 20, 2002 (case file of evidence, folio 3406). 35 Cf. Interlocutory Order No. 06/03 issued by the JEM on March 25, 2003 (case file of evidence, folios 3574 and 3575). Cf. Excuse filed before the president of the JEM by Luis Talavera Alegre on March 25, 2003 (case file of evidence, folio 3576), 36 Cf. Note from the president of the Chamber of Senators to the vice-president of the JEM dated March 31, 2003 (case file of evidence, folio 3582). 37 13