They also ruled out the existence of a valid reason to remove the judge, stating that "this has not happened in this case, since the appellant doesn't cite any of the grounds provided for in the aforementioned procedural rules, but merely generally claims that Judge Lorenzetti would lack impartiality. Such a defect is sufficient to support the rejection, without further procedure, of the recusal."
According to the ruling, the precedent "Llerena" invoked by the defense was also not applicable, since in that case the judge was removed from the case due to the existence of "objective and verifiable circumstances" that justified her removal, which doesn't occur in this instance.
Finally, the ruling adds that "it also doesn't cite any specific excerpt from the May 1 interview that would justify the conclusion that both events are linked and that Judge Lorenzetti lacks impartiality to judge this case."
"It only makes an inference based on an opinion article published on May 4, which is manifestly insufficient to justify the need to remove one of the natural judges of this case, with the special gravity that such a decision has when the recusal is directed against a member of this Court," it concludes.
