no information on the result of this legal remedy following the said decision; moreover, the case file does not reveal any decision in relation to the presumed victims requests concerning the merits. 105. Finally, throughout the civil proceeding, different problems have arisen with regard to the judges appointed to hear the case: some judges have recused themselves, while Messrs. Mémoli have recused or denounced others for supposed irregularities. In particular, three first instance judges recused themselves from the case owing to a situation of “moral violence.” 191 In addition, the presumed victims recused at least two judges and one registrar, and one of the judges was recused twice. 192 In each case, the Appellate Chamber denied these recusals. 193 On August 17, 2012, the presumed victims denounced the first instance judge in charge of the case and the members of the Appellate Chamber for “malfeasance in office and [presumed] unlawful association.” In addition, in the context of the procedure on precautionary measures in September 2012, the presumed victims presented two new recusals. 194 However, the Court’s case file does not contain the responses to these recusals and allegations. 106. On March 12, 2008, following a complaint filed by the presumed victims, the Supreme Court of Justice of Buenos Aires indicated that the judge responsible for the main court case processed before the Fourth Court for Civil and Commercial Affairs had decided to recuse herself from the case (supra para. 105) and, “subsequently, as a member of the First Chamber for Civil and Commercial Matters, signed the decision contested by the complainant,” and even though the “recusal prevented the said judge from intervening,” the Chamber “endorsed the decision [following an appeal for reversal].” 195 The Supreme Court considered that this situation “did not cause any prejudice to the processing of the case.” Nevertheless, the judge recommended “that – hereafter – the pertinent evidence should be monitored to ensure that actions such as this [were] not repeated.” 196 Moreover, with regard to the judge of the First Court for Civil and Commercial Matters, the Supreme Court noted that “there ha[d] been a delay in deciding the request to consider that the evidence stage had expired, so that, even though the case file was away from the court on two occasions, a considerable delay has been verified.” 197 Consequently, the Supreme Court decided to apply 191 Decision of June 11, 2001 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2077); decision of June 5, 2003 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2173), and decision of March 23, 2006 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2602). 192 Cf. Decision of October 7, 2005 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2426); brief of July 27, 2006 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2544), and brief of March 6, 2012 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, annex 2, folio 1715). 193 Cf. Decision of March 14, 2006 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2462); note of September 12, 2006 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2552), and decision of March 6, 2012 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, annex 2, folios 1716 and 1717). 194 Cf. Briefs of September 2012 (merits file, annex G, folios 491 to 495). 195 Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of the province of Buenos Aires of March 12, 2008 (file of annexes to the Merits Report, annex 25, folio 311). 196 Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of the province of Buenos Aires of March 12, 2008 (file of annexes to the Merits Report, annex 25, folios 313 and 314). 197 Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of the province of Buenos Aires of March 12, 2008 (file of annexes to the Merits Report, annex 25, folio 313). 43