“the disciplinary sanction of an admonition” to this judge. 198 The Supreme Court also decided to issue a warning to another judge for the delay in the execution of the Mémoli fees. 199 107. Meanwhile, in April 2006, the judge of the case issued a “call to attention” to Pablo Mémoli “indicating that hereafter he should respect the obligation to observe proper decorum in his briefs.” 200 In response to another communication from Pablo Mémoli, the judge repeated the foregoing and ordered that Pablo Mémoli receive the disciplinary sanction of an admonition. 201 In February 2011, the judge who was hearing the case at that time again issued a warning to the presumed victims and ordered that the brief be removed from the file. 202 108. According to information provided to the Court, the civil proceedings remains pending the decision in first instance, and the latest information in the case file are the denunciations for malfeasance in office filed by the presumed victims and the challenges to the judge in the context of the precautionary measures in August and September 2012 (supra para. 105). In addition, regarding the merits of the matter, there is no record in the case file that the evidence stage has been concluded, because the transcription of the cassettes offered as evidence by the presumed victims and plaintiffs in this proceeding remains pending and also, if applicable, the request for annulment filed by the presumed victims based on the supposed loss of some of the cassettes (supra paras. 101 and 102). D. Precautionary measure of injunction against the sale or encumbrance of property 109. On March 1, 1996, in the context of the criminal proceeding, the complainants, Antonio Guarracino, Humberto Romanello and Juan Bernardo Piriz, requested an “injunction against the sale or encumbrance of the property of […] Carlos and Pablo Mémoli,” arguing that “if the result persists when the Supreme Court has ruled, the right to receive damages will arise, and also the professional fees of the lawyers concerned.” 203 The measure was granted on March 8, 1996. 204 Messrs. Mémoli appealed this decision. 205 On April 18, 1996, the Appellate Chamber for Criminal Matters confirmed the decision that had been appealed ordering the injunction on disposing of the property. 206 On April 22, that year, Messrs. Mémoli filed an appeal for clarification, but the Chamber considered that it could not find “any doubtful or obscure concept in the decision issued,” and therefore declare the appeal 198 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 314). 199 Cf. 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 311 and 314). 200 Decision of April 6, 2006 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2483). 201 Cf. Decision of June 21, 2006 (file of annexes to the State’s final written arguments, annex V, folios 5851 and 5852). 202 Cf. Decision of February 3, 2011 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, annex 2, folio 1661). 203 Request for an injunction on the sale or encumbrance of property of March 1, 1996 (file of annexes to the Merits Report, annex 9, folios 231 and 232). 204 Cf. Decision of the First Judge of Criminal and Correctional Matters of March 8, 1996 (file of annexes to the Merits Report, annex 10, folio 234). The complainant’s representative stated that “he accepted responsibility for the losses that the precautionary measure ordered […] could cause the other party.” Cf. note of March 13, 1996 (file of proceedings before the Commission, folio 382). 205 Cf. Appeal (file of annexes to the Merits Report, annex 11, folios 236 to 239). 206 Cf. Judgment on the appeal of April 18, 1996 (file of annexes to the Merits Report, annex 12, folio 241), and certification of notification dated April 19, 1996 (file of annexes to the Merits Report, annex 6, folio 225). 44