founded.” 146 The other judges did not examine the possibility of a review of the criminal conviction. C. Civil proceedings against Carlos and Pablo Mémoli 147 95. In December 1997, the complainants, now plaintiffs (Antonio Guarracino, Humberto Romanello and Juan Bernardo Piriz), filed a civil action for damages against Carlos and Pablo Mémoli, based on the final criminal convictions handed down against them 148 (supra paras. 74, 84, 88 and 90). 96. A dispute arose at the start of the civil proceeding with regard to the notification of the complaint, which prevented it from progressing for almost four years, owing to the way in which the plaintiffs had filed the complaint and the fact that the presumed victims considered that they had been notified of the complaint prematurely (before the plaintiffs had presented all their arguments). The complaint for damages filed on December 29, 1997, stated that it sought to interrupt prescription, owing to the moral wrong caused by the defamation committed by the respondents, which had been adjudicated in the criminal jurisdiction 149 (supra paras. 74 to 90). Before receiving formal notification, the presumed victims “notified themselves of the complaint” on February 10, 1998, and filed an objection of res judicata and prescription of the civil action. 150 Owing to this personal notification, different remedies were filed because “the plaintiff’s right to expand […] or modify [… the complaint] had been impeded.” 151 During this time, the case file was referred to the Appellate Chamber on three occasions, because the first two times the Chamber decided to return the proceedings to the first instance court so that it would decide other remedies that were pending. 152 Also, at the same time, the parties filed appeals for a declaration of nullity against the actions of one of the plaintiffs’ lawyers who had not presented a power of attorney. 153 In December 2000, the Appellate Chamber decided that the personal notification of Messrs. Mémoli was not “a valid notification,” so that the time limit established for the “requirement of answering” the notification of the pleading of the other party had not commenced. Consequently, in March 146 Judgment of July 4, 2012, of the Supreme Court of Justice of the province of Buenos Aires (merits file, Annex D, folios 520 to 533). 147 In this section, the Court will only establish the most relevant facts of the said civil proceeding, taking into account the violations alleged in this case. 148 According to article 1101 of the Civil Code of the Nation Argentina: ‘‘[i]f the criminal action shall have preceded the civil action, or was filed during the latter, the accused shall not be convicted in the civil proceeding before he is convicted in the criminal proceeding.” Civil Code of the Argentine Nation. Law 340, article 1101 (file of annexes to the representatives’ final arguments, folio 2878, available at: http://www.codigocivilonline.com.ar/codigo_civil_online_1066_1106.html). 149 1799). 150 Cf. Pleading of the complaint of December 29, 1997 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folios 1794 to Cf. Brief of February 10, 1998 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folios 1813 to 1818). 151 Brief of February 19, 1998 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 1823); brief of March 17, 1999 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folios 1937 to 1944); brief of March 24, 1998 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folios 1884 to 1886), and brief of June 8, 1999 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folios 1958 to 1960). 152 Cf. Decision of May 27, 1999 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 1953); decision of September 12, 2000 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 1990), and decision of October 25, 2000 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 1991). 153 Cf. Brief of August 3, 1998 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folios 1909 and 1910); decision of October 16, 1998 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 1911), and brief of August 11, 1998 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 1923). 38