83. In addition, the court considered that the statements contained in the other documents, articles and communications based on which the complaint was filed against Messrs. Mémoli did not constitute the offenses of libel or defamation. 116 The court also underscored that, “the evidence provided to the case file d[id] not reveal that the complainants had made any insulting remarks about the respondents, which eliminates the possibility of compensation for them.” 117 Regarding the “freedom of the press cited by Pablo Mémoli,” the first instance court indicated that the fact that criminal charges were brought against Mr. Mémoli for some of his published statements, “does not mean […] a restriction or limitation of the freedom cited,” because “freedom of the press […] cannot protect, giving rise to impunity, those who cite it and, by their actions, harm the rights of third parties that also deserve protection.” 118 In addition, the first instance court expressly ruled on “Pablo Mémoli’s attempted defense based on public interest,” indicating that: The central element of the dispute is a private institution and the matters that are discussed or decided in it affects its members, but not the whole community; and, furthermore, it is possible to criticize what is happening in a specific institution, without resorting to insults. 119 84. Based on all the above considerations, the first instance court sentenced Carlos Mémoli “to a suspended sentence of one month’s imprisonment, with costs,” while Pablo Mémoli was sentenced “to a suspended sentence of five months’ imprisonment, with costs.” Regarding the complaint for damages, the court determined that “it was not in order to admit it, since they had not appeared before the court as plaintiffs demanding damages.” The court ordered that the judgment be published in La Libertad and broadcast on Radio Vall in a single FM program. 120 B.2) Decision on appeal had been indicated by the complainants as insulting, constituted the offense of defamation, because he considered that “separately and in their context, they do not appear to have been said with animus injuriandi, because they are part of a presentation to an administrative authority in defense of the signatory’s rights and in keeping with his authority because he had been member of the association.” 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, folio 204). 116 In particular, the “letters document” of April 6, 1990, and the publication of an article entitled “Autoritarismo e Irregularidades de Miembros de una Comisión Directiva” [Authoritarianism and irregularities of members of a Management Committee] in La Libertad on April 14, 1990, both by Carlos Mémoli; articles “Denuncian presunta defraudación” [Presumed fraud denounced] of April 14, 1990, “Toman declaración a adquirientes de nichos” [Statements taken from those who acquired burial niches] of April 28, 1990, “Caso nichos: Torpe amenaza a la libertad” [Burial niches case: clumsy threat to freedom] of November 25, 1990, and another article of May 28, 1991, the columns of “Chusman” of April 14 and July 15, 1990, all the documents of Pablo Mémoli, as well as the documents of May 3 and June 21, 1990, submitted to INAM. Cf. 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 170, 172, 173, 174, 175, 177, 185, 186, 201, 202, 204, 205, 206 and 207). 117 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, folio 210) 118 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 209 and 210). 119 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, folio 208). 120 Cf. 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 210, 211, 214 and 215). 33