suitable channel for defending their rights that they had filed the motion for amparo. 76. Following publication in the newspaper El Tribuno of the news that the provincial executive had, on April 4, 2000, delivered ownership papers for portions of fiscal lots 55 covered by Decree 461, which the petitioners had challenged, they requested, in their motion for amparo, that "prior to the final decision, the executive branch be ordered to suspend all acts and effects that flow from the challenged Decrees.” This request for "no innovation" was rejected by the Supreme Court of Salta on June 8, 2000. On November 15, 2000 the Court of Justice of Salta rejected the motion for constitutional protection brought by the petitioners, finding that there was no specific breach of the rights invoked, nor any manifest illegality in the handling of the claim. The petitioners brought an extraordinary federal appeal against that ruling, which was rejected by the Court of Salta on March 14, 2001, whereupon the petitioners filed a complaint before the federal Supreme Court of Justice. 77. In its ruling of June 15, 2004, the federal Supreme Court accepted the extraordinary appeal and quashed the challenged decision, ordering the case returned to the original tribunal to issue a ruling consistent with that judgment. The federal Supreme Court, in its judgment, accepted the reasoning and the conclusions set forth by the Prosecutor General, to which the reader is referred for the sake of brevity. Among his conclusions, the Prosecutor General noted that: the challenged ruling "has extinguished the action filed without sufficient legal and factual grounds…. Especially, when there is no apparent usefulness in pursuing another process with more debate and evidence, since it is not necessary to produce more data to resolve the present case." The Prosecutor General also ordered that the judgment must be quashed on the basis of the doctrine of arbitrariness, since the Supreme Court of Salta had ignored the provisions of local public law invoked by the petitioners, thereby affecting rights covered by constitutional protection.15 To date, the Supreme Court of Salta has not issued a new decision. 15 Attorney General (Procurador General de la Nación), Nicolás Eduardo Becerra, Buenos Aires, November 26, 2003.