brief, in this case, what the Court had competence to decide was whether or not the State had incurred international responsibility for having violated an international obligation. Thus, what must now be clarified are the actions of the State, whether acts or omissions, that could result in its international responsibility 358 in this regard. b. The action of the State to be considered in this case According to the case file, this action by the State is the judgment in second instance of December 28, 1995, of the Second Chamber for Criminal and Correctional Matters of the Judicial Department of Mercedes, province of Buenos Aires, confirming the judgment of December 29, 1994, of Court No. 7 for Criminal and Correctional Matters of the Judicial Department of Mercedes which was not annulled by the subsequent decisions on the appeals on unconstitutionality and for clarification, and the special appeal on unconstitutionality. 359 This second instance judgment confirmed the sentence against Messrs. Mémoli for having committed the offense of defamation because, in newspaper articles and on radio programs, they made statements categorized as such concerning both the sale of burial niches in the Municipal Cemetery of San Andrés de Giles by the Asociación Italiana de Socorros Mutuos, Cultural and Creativa “Porvenir de Italia,” and the complaint they had filed before the National Mutual Action Institute requesting that it investigate the said Association and some of its directors for accounting and administrative irregularities within the Association. 360 The statements considered to be defamatory consisted in considering that those directors were authors or accessories to the offense of presumed fraud, or criminals; that the sale involved corruption, and that they had acted with wilful intent and with “subterfuges (tretas) and deceit (manganetas).” 361 The litis in this case related to the violation of the provisions of Articles 13, 9, 8(1), 21, 23, 24 and 25, the first in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2, and the others in relation to Article 1(1), all of the Convention. 362 c. Determination of the possible internationally wrongful act of the State Having defined the above-mentioned act that can be attributed to the State, it is now necessary to relate it to the provisions of Articles 13 and 9 of the Convention, so as to be able to determine its legitimacy or, to the contrary, its international wrongfulness and, consequently, the responsibility of the State, all of this considering that it is with regard to 357 Article 68(1) of the Convention establishes that: “[t]he States Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.” 358 Draft articles on Responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts, prepared by the International Law Commission of the United Nations, attached to Resolution 56/83, approved by the General Assembly (based on the report of the Sixth Committee (A/56/589 and Corr.1)]. Responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts, eighty-fifth plenary session, 12 December 2001, Official Documents of the General Assembly, fifty-sixth session, Supplement No. 10 and corrections (A/56/10 and Corr.1 and 2). 2 Ibid., paras. 72 and 73. 359 Paras. 92 to 94 of the Judgment. 360 Even though paragraphs 66 and 67 consider that the fact relating to the appointment of the wife and son of the Vice President of the said Association in teaching positions within it has been proved, to the detriment of the wife of Carlos Mémoli, this does not form part of the instant case because Messrs. Mémoli were not convicted for statements concerning their complaints based on these supposed irregularities. 361 Paras. 75 to 84 of the Judgment. 362 Operative paragraphs 2 to 5 of the Judgment. 2