because they attributed dishonest actions to them, […] since, by accusing them of lying, […] the complainants’ reputation was harmed, because their honesty was being questioned with the adjectives used about their actions.” 112 81. That court also examined an article by Pablo Mémoli entitled “Caso Nichos: el juez dijo que los boletos de compraventa son de objeto imposible e inválidos” (supra para. 75.6). Since this article was published after the judge had issued his decision on the presumed fraud concerning the burial niches (supra para. 70), the first instance judge considered that the statements made by Pablo Mémoli, attributing wilful intent to the complainants’ actions, constituted the offense of defamation. 113 According to this decision: An article subsequent to [the judicial decision on dismissal] refers to fraud, classifying the act as presumed fraud, despite the judge’s decision, and using terms that can be considered denigrating, because they affect the honor of the targeted individuals in the Association and […] were written with full knowledge of what was being done and said and, what is even more serious, even though a judicial decision existed that indicated the contrary. Therefore, [Pablo Mémoli] must face criminal charges for defamation as the author of the said publication. 114 82. Finally, the first instance court considered that certain statements made by Carlos Mémoli in a document submitted to INAM on June 27, 1990 (supra para. 76.2) also constituted the offense of defamation. The court determined that “the word ‘unscrupulous’ used to describe the three complainants were excessive in the context of the submission [to INAM], constituting a voluntary digression to insult them, because the attempted personal affront was neither necessary nor essential in the context of the complaint made, and […] was included with full knowledge of what was said and done.” 115 112 In particular, the first instance court considered the following statements detrimental: (1) “[…] thus, this shows that they drew up this sales contract with full knowledge, perhaps, that it was incorrect; this is why, in our newspaper, we explain this as fraud ” (attributed to Pablo Mémoli); (2) […] we are sure, we have documentation, everything is written down, we are not inventing anything, we don’t need to lie, not even to be slightly deceitful about anything, absolutely anything; but they do, they do and they are doing so” (attributed to Pablo Mémoli); (3) “[…] denigrating also” (attributed to Pablo Mémoli); (4) “[…] denigrating and lying, intimidating some people, threatening others, this is not correct […]” (attributed to Carlos Mémoli). Judgment of Court No. 7 for Criminal and Correctional Affairs of the Judicial Department of Mercedes of December 29, 1994, case No. 71,114 (file of annexes to the Merits Report, annex 3, folios 195, 197 and 198). 113 This article reads: “This newspaper, under the responsibility of its director, considered the act to be presumed fraud, and we continue to maintain this, because the case file reveals the fraud from the evidence provided by the accused who did not hesitate to be (mendacious) and (fallacious), before the courts themselves. When the judge referred to a contract with an impossible object, in our opinion, he was saying that they sold what could not be sold. […] There is no doubt that everyone who bought what could not be sold was defrauded […].” Judgment of Court No. 7 for Criminal and Correctional Affairs of the Judicial Department of Mercedes of December 29, 1994, case No. 71,114 (file of annexes to the Merits Report, annex 3, folios 199 and 200). See also, Article entitled “Caso Nichos: el juez dijo que los boletos de compraventa son de objeto imposible e invalidos” by Pablo Mémoli, published on June 16, 1990, in the newspaper La Libertad in San Andrés de Giles (file of annexes to the final written arguments of the representatives, folios 3719 and 3718). 114 Judgment of Court No. 7 for Criminal and Correctional Affairs of the Judicial Department of Mercedes of December 29, 1994, case No. 71,114 (file of annexes to the Merits Report, annex 3, folios 200 and 201). 115 In this document Carlos Mémoli states, inter alia, the following: he “reiterate[s] once again that, in [his] opinion, INAM, as a monitoring body, should take control urgently of the Management Committee of the Italian Association of San Andrés de Giles. The totally ‘DISCRETIONAL” administration of [the complainants] over the last six years is notorious. […] It is essential that INAM end this take-over and the repeated violations of the Statute; the impunity with which those who stand in the way of three unscrupulous members of the Management Committee, such as Guarracino, Piriz and Romanello, who, abusing their circumstantial majority, commit any act of arbitrariness, are suspended. [...] Based on all these considerations, and the irregular publication of official announcements, the expenses incurred by the Institution because of the Management Committee, the doubtful actions of the treasurer; the actions to avert a balance sheet prepared by our accountant, and in defense of the Institution, we request the annulment of the report of the INAM accounting lawyer because it is partial and irregular from every point of view, and neither in keeping with nor based on law.” Document of June 27, 1990, addressed by Carlos Mémoli to INAM that is included in the case file of the criminal proceeding (file of annexes to the State’s final written arguments, annex III, folios 3952 to 3956). In his decision, the first instance judge rejected that the other parts of the said document that 32