but also effectively adversely affected the personal life and life projects of the petitioners.” The Commission did not refer to the alleged violation of the right to property. 164. The representatives stressed that the civil suit has been “interminable and, therefore, arbitrary and, at this stage, has no purpose when two of the three plaintiffs have desisted […] and when […] defamation has been decriminalized in […] Argentina.” They argued that it was not true that the delays were due to the appeals they had filed, and that they had always responded to notifications without waiting until the time frames were about to expire. They also indicated that “they have no debts; however, the courts endorse [the precautionary measures], nowadays without any justification, affecting their personal and financial activities, curtailing their civil rights and, consequently, causing serious prejudices without any need.” In this regard, they indicated that, even though they have not been convicted, the “burden of this penalty [hangs over them, and] throughout [their] life, has caused them anxiety,” and has also prevented them from “obtaining credit to buy a printing machine, [so that] they have been unable to improve their financial situation at the speed of a company that does not have this problem,” which, they indicated, “also limits freedom of expression.” In this regard, they argued that “the injunctions led to a total barrier to any possibility of use and enjoyment” [of their property] and, therefore, constituted a violation of their right to property. Regarding the possibility of substituting the general injunction for an embargo, they indicated that it would be necessary “to have several assets, or at least one, [that was not] the family home, in order to offer it.” 165. The State noted that both parties to the civil suit “have contributed decisively, in the context of the personal litigation strategies used in this case, to extend the time taken in the processing of the proceeding.” It also indicated that “except for one or other specific request to decide the matter promptly, […] the civil case does not reveal pleadings concerning the unreasonableness of the duration of the proceeding. In this regard, it is evident that this is not a serious concern of the presumed victims in this case.” The State also indicated that article 1102 of the Civil Code, applicable to the civil case, establishes that “the existence of the main fact that constitutes the offense cannot be contested in the civil action, and the guilt of the accused cannot be challenged.” It underscored that “Pablo Mémoli [had] received a disciplinary sanction of an admonition, after he had ignored previous warnings about the obligation to observe proper decorum in his pleadings […], as a result of referring to the decisions of the judge hearing the case in an insulting manner.” 166. The State indicated that “the delay in the time frames [in the] civil proceeding was due to the procedural activity of the parties, so that there was no basis for inferring that the State was responsible for a presumed violation of freedom of thought and expression based on a supposed violation of the reasonableness of the duration of the proceeding.” Argentina considered that, even though the relationship between reasonable time and freedom of expression “may be applied to other cases, […] it does not apply to the case of Carlos and Pablo Mémoli because no evidence has been provided to substantiate this.” In this regard, it stressed that, during the civil proceeding, the presumed victims never associated freedom of expression “with the delay in the procedural time frames to which they themselves have made a significant contribution.” Furthermore, it cannot be concluded that there has been a violation of freedom of expression based on the mere existence of a precautionary measure, “that has continued in force over time for reasons that have involved the petitioners.” In relation to the alleged violation of the right to property, the State noted that the representatives had “not explained [why] they did not offer other assets to be embargoed in order to obtain the lifting of the injunction, since this is permitted by Argentine law.” A.2) Considerations of the Court 62