23. The petitioners further argue that Argentina has violated the right to a fair trial of Mr. Eduardo Kimel because the courts that tried him lacked the element of impartiality required by the American Convention, as was patently clear from the corporate reaction to a criticism of a member of the judiciary. 24. Finally, the petitioners indicate that the State has breached its obligations under Article 2 of the American Convention, inasmuch as in this particular case it applied Articles 109 and 110 of the Argentine Criminal Code, which, like the now-abolished desacato laws in Argentina, punish statements or expressions that criticize public officials in the exercise of their duties. B. The State 25. The State for its part informed the Commission that a bill has been under preparation since July 6, 2001 with a view to reforming the provisions contained in the Criminal Code and the Civil Code on libel and slander against public officials in the exercise of their duties. However, according to information supplied on a variety of occasions, including at the working meetings, the bill has been left on hold, without any firm progress made. 26. In its presentation of April 16, 2003, the State, in reference to the request of the petitioners that the petition lodged on behalf of Mr. Kimel be declared admissible because the deadline under Article 30 of the IACHR Rules of Procedure for the State to present its observations or objections regarding the admissibility of the petition in question had expired, said that the initial communication of the Commission of February 2, 2001 did not specify to which of the different petitions joined under petition 12.128 the complainants were referring, so as to have enabled the State to convey its observations. Furthermore, it argued that there was no silence on its part toward Mr. Kimel’s petition, since that petition was an integral part of petition 12.128, which was the subject of a friendly settlement procedure that, strictly speaking, is devoid of any procedural deadlines. 27. In that communication, the State further indicated that it had received no official pronouncement providing definitive confirmation of the separation of the petition concerning Mr. Kimel from the friendly settlement procedure under way in the socalled "Verbitsky case." Accordingly, it considered that the arguments regarding its purported failure to reply should be rejected. 28. After the separation of petition 720/2000 concerning the situation of Mr. Kimel was made official, the State issued no pronouncement on the claims of the petitioners or on the admissibility of the petition. IV. ANALYSIS A. The Commission’s competence ratione personae, ratione materiae, ratione temporis and ratione loci 29. The petitioners are entitled, in principle, under Article 44 of the American Convention to lodge petitions with the Commission. The petition names as an alleged victim an individual in respect of whom the State undertook to respect and ensure the rights enshrined in the American Convention. As to the State, the Commission notes that Argentina has been a state party to the Convention since September 5, 1984, the