D. Second complaint filed against Prosecutor Nissen Pessolani 43. On April 4, 2003, L.H.A., in his capacity as representative of S.D.V. and M.M.D., filed a complaint against Mr. Nissen Pessolani for poor performance of duties in Case No. 14069, alleging the grounds established in subparagraphs (b), (c), (g) and (n) of Article 14 of Law No. 1084.45 44. On May 16, 2003, the JEM issued order 12/03 admitting the complaint, initiating the second proceeding and requesting that the Supreme Court of Justice issue a preventive suspension of Prosecutor Nissen Pessolani.46 By means of Official Letter No. 45/03 of May 16, 2003, the JEM informed the President of the Supreme Court of the preventive suspension of Prosecutor Nissen. Said Official Letter was notified to him on May 19, 2003, which did not specify that the suspension was without pay.47 Indeed, in application of Decree No. 552 of the Supreme Court, his dismissal was suspended due to the effect of having filed an action of unconstitutionality against the JEM's judgment issued in the first proceeding (supra parrs. 34 a 42). However, on May 20, 2003, the alleged victim received the notification of Resolution No. 1182 of the Supreme Court of Justice, by means of which he was suspended without pay "until final resolution of the case." 48 45. On the same day, Mr. Nissen Pessolani filed an appeal for reversal against Resolution No. 1182. On June 10, 2003, the Supreme Court of Justice, by means of Resolution No. 1194, partially revoked its previous decision, ordering payment of the basic part of the alleged victim's salary, but not of the supplementary part of her remuneration as a prosecutor.49 46. By judgment of April 29, 2004, the JEM acquitted the alleged victim.50 Mr. Nissen Pessolani filed an appeal for clarification regarding the EMB's decision on costs, which was declared admissible on May 13, 2004.51 E. Unconstitutionality action filed by the alleged victim 47. On April 22, 2003, Mr. Nissen Pessolani filed an action of unconstitutionality against the Judgment S.D. No. 02/03 of April 7, 2003 of the JEM (supra para. 40), alleging that it violated several guarantees of due process, right to work and labor stability. In particular, he alleged that the JEM ruled and convicted him on the basis of an issue not raised by the initial complaint; he also claimed that the judgment incurred in contradictions and that elements of his defense were not taken into account in the sanctioning decision. Likewise, he indicated that there was a violation of his right to defense since his being a defendant was used against him to described the alleged poor performance of his duties. On the other hand, he alleged that the JEM did not make a 45 Cf. Complaint filed by L.H.A. before the JEM on April 4, 2003 (case file of evidence, folios 47 to 64). Cf. Interlocutory Order No. 12/03 issued by the JEM on May 16, 2003 (case file of evidence, folios 2736 to 2738). 46 47 Cf. Letter No. 45/03 of the JEM of May 16, 2003 (case file of evidence, folio 2735). 48 Order No. 1182 issued by the Supreme Court of Justice on May 20, 2003 (case file of evidence, folio 2740). 49 Cf. Order No. 1194 issued by the Supreme Court of Justice on June 10, 2003 (case file of evidence, folios 2742 to 2744). 50 Cf. Judgment No. 11/04 issued by the JEM on April 29, 2004 (case file of evidence, folios 66 to 80). 51 Cf. Judgment No. 13/04 issued by the JEM on May 13, 2004 (case file of evidence, folios 82 to 83). 15