6. On April 17, 2001 the petitioners presented a communication to the Commission in
which they formally expressed their consent to the inclusion of this case in the friendly
settlement procedure already in progress. However, without prejudice to the foregoing,
they requested that the Commission give consideration in its examination to the
specific aspects of the petition concerning the position of Eduardo Kimel under both
criminal and civil law.
7. On July 30, 2001 the State sent a communication to the IACHR in the framework of
the friendly settlement procedure in connection with petition 12.128, and forwarded a
copy of a draft bill presented by the Executive Branch to the Congress to reform the
provisions on the crimes of libel and slander contained in Argentina’s Civil and Criminal
Codes, in order to make them compatible with the object and purpose of the American
Convention. That communication was transmitted to the petitioners on August 16,
2001, and they were given one month to submit observations.
8. On September 27, 2001 the petitioners sent a note to the Executive Secretariat in
which they refer to the draft bill presented by the Executive Branch to the Congress
with a view to reforming the provisions on the crimes of libel and slander contained in
Argentina’s Civil and Criminal Codes. The pertinent portions of that communication
were brought to the attention of the State on October 12, 2001, and it was given one
month to present the information it deemed pertinent in that regard.
9. At the request of the petitioners, the Commission called the parties to a working
meeting that was held on November 15, 2001 in the framework of the 113th session of
the IACHR. In the course of that meeting, the parties discussed the need for the State
to define its position with respect to the possibility of disposing of the Kimel case in a
friendly settlement procedure. The issue of the draft bill was also addressed at a
meeting held during the working visit conducted by the country rapporteur in July
2002.
10. In a communication of August 15, 2002 the petitioners requested that the
Commission ask the State to provide up-to-date information on the processing of the
draft parliamentary bill to reform the Civil and Criminal Codes.
11. The Commission called the parties to another working meeting held on October 18,
2002, in the framework of the 116th session of the IACHR. On this occasion the State
provided information on the processing of the draft bill and said that, owing to the
particular nature of the petition concerning Mr. Kimel, it would not be feasible to
resolve it completely in the friendly settlement procedure initiated in respect of the socalled "Verbitsky case."
12. On November 27, 2002 the Commission received a communication from the
petitioners requesting that the petition lodged on behalf of Mr. Kimel be declared
admissible, inasmuch as the deadlines provided for at Article 30 of the IACHR’s Rules
of Procedure for the State to submit its observations or objections regarding the
admissibility of the petition in question had expired. The IACHR transmitted the
relevant parts of that brief to the State in a note of February 5, 2003.
13. The Commission called the parties to another working meeting held on February
28, 2003 in the course of the 117th session of the IACHR. The object of the meeting
was to review the status of the negotiations in the friendly settlement procedure on

Select target paragraph3