exclusively on the criminal conviction,” which the State itself had acknowledged in its answering brief; hence, in the absence of the criminal conviction, there would be no grounds for the civil complaint. In addition, they argued that the criminal conviction had represented “a legal impediment” for Pablo Mémoli to take part in a competition for the position of judge of a misdemeanors court of San Andrés de Giles, as well as “to obtain a radio license.” Based on these facts, the representatives also argued the violation of Article 23 of the Convention to the detriment of Pablo Mémoli. To counter the State’s argument that the presumed victims erred in requesting the application to their case of the amended law, by an appeal on unconstitutionality, they indicated that “the judges changed [the said] remedy […], [that was supposedly] erroneous […], to an appeal for review, and both the chamber and the court indicated that it was not in order to acquit them,” so that “even presenting the appeal for review correctly, […], [their request] would have been rejected.” 151. The State emphasized that, in their pleadings and motions brief, the presumed victims “had merely copied the text [of Article 9 of the Convention] without indicating any specific connection to the facts of the case.” It also indicated that Messrs. Mémoli failed to provide evidence for their assertions, and that “the supposed restrictions suffered by Pablo Mémoli to his political rights were established by law and permitted by the […] Convention.” According to the State, Messrs. Mémoli “opted to file remedies that were patently inappropriate,” because “[i]nstead of requesting their acquittal by the application of the […] most favorable law […], they insisted […] on filing the appeal on unconstitutionality,” and “[w]hen rejecting the appeals […], the Supreme Court of the province of Buenos Aires expressly indicated that the case had not decided constitutional matters and it did not note any grievances of the presumed victims that could be described in those terms.” In addition, Argentina pointed out that Messrs. Mémoli had note even provided “the minimum evidence required to process the said special remedy,” but rather “had merely asserted the existence of an action for damages based exclusively on the criminal conviction.” 152. The Commission did not include the alleged violation of Article 9 (based on the principle of legality and the retroactive application of the law) in its Merits Report. However, in its final written observations, it underlined that Messrs. Mémoli “have taken measures at the domestic level” for the annulment of the criminal conviction against them, “without having obtained a favorable response,” even though, in the Commission’s opinion, “they were not obliged to take such measures that the State should have taken ex officio, given the evident violations already declared by the Inter-American Commission and that the Inter-American Court is in the process of deciding on the merits following long years of inter-American litigation.” It indicated that, owing to the public interest of the statements made by Messrs. Mémoli, the application of the criminal law now in force in Argentina, “pursuant to the principle of the most favorable law,” “necessarily should lead to the annulment of the criminal conviction and the dismissal of the civil proceeding against them” or, “at least, to the lifting of the precautionary measure.” It indicated that “there is no doubt” that the criminal conviction “continues to produce legal effects, because it serves as grounds for a civil proceeding that has involved an injunction against the sale or encumbrance of their property for 16 years.” B.2) Considerations of the Court 153. The Court recalls that the presumed victims or their representatives may cite the violation of rights other than those included in the Commission’s Merits Report. 271 271 Cf. Case of the Five Pensioners v. Peru, supra, para. 155, and Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador, supra, para. 19. 59