28 the submission of evidence within the legally established time limit, so as to produce evidence that protected the rights of [his] client.”32 69(12) On October 11, 1993, the First Trial Judge ordered “that the case be opened for the submission of evidence within the legally established time limit.”33 On October 26, 1993, Mr. Canese’s lawyer offered the “testimonial statements” of six individuals, and requested that the evidence offered should be admitted and that the respective hearings should be arranged.34 On November 5, 1993, the complainants’ lawyer requested the First Trial Judge to close the evidentiary stage, because “the peremptory period of ten days, established in Art. 4 of Decree Law 14,338/46, for providing evidence had elapsed, and [because] counsel for the defense ha[d] not pressed for the evidence to be taken or requested application of the time allowed for receiving evidence.”35 On November 8, 1993, the Secretary of the Criminal Trial Court informed the judge that, “on October 11, [1993 …] an order had been issued to open the case for the submission of evidence […] and the time limit established by law ha[d] now elapsed.”36 69(13) On November 10, 1993, the First Trial Judge for Criminal Matters announced hearings for November 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 29, 1993, so that the witnesses proposed by the defense “[could] appear before the Court to make their testimonial statements.”37 On November 12, 1993, the complainants’ lawyer filed an “[a]ppeal for reconsideration of judgment against the ruling dated November 10, [1993],” in which he requested the First Trial Judge for Criminal Matters to revoke this ruling and order the evidentiary stage to be closed, based on “the actuary’s report of November 8, 1993” (supra para. 69(12))38. 32 Cf. brief submitted by Ricardo Canese’s lawyer to the First Trial Judge for Criminal Matters of Asunción on September 24, 1993 (copy of the file of the criminal proceeding against Ricardo Canese for the offenses of slander and injuria before the First Criminal Trial Court, file of attachments to the brief answering the application, and with observations on the brief with requests and arguments, attachment 4, folio 831). 33 Cf. ruling delivered by the First Trial Judge for Criminal Matters on October 11, 1993 (copy of the file of the criminal proceeding against Ricardo Canese for the offenses of slander and injuria before the First Criminal Trial Court, file of attachments to the brief answering the application, and with observations on the brief with requests and arguments, tome I, attachment 4, folio 832). 34 Cf. brief submitted by Ricardo Canese’s lawyer to the First Trial Judge for Criminal Matters on October 26, 1993 (copy of the file of the criminal proceeding against Ricardo Canese for the offenses of slander and injuria before the First Criminal Trial Court, file of attachments to the brief answering the application, and with observations on the brief with requests and arguments, tome I, attachment 4, folio 834). 35 Cf. brief submitted by the complainants’ lawyer to the First Trial Judge for Criminal Matters on November 5, 1993 (copy of the file of the criminal proceeding against Ricardo Canese for the offenses of slander and injuria before the First Criminal Trial Court, file of attachments to the brief answering the application, and with observations on the brief with requests and arguments, tome I, attachment 4, folio 835). 36 Cf. report of the Secretary of the First Criminal Trial Court dated November 8, 1993 (copy of the file of the criminal proceeding against Ricardo Canese for the offenses of slander and injuria before the First Criminal Trial Court, file of attachments to the brief answering the application, and with observations on the brief with requests and arguments, tome I, attachment 4, folio 836). 37 Cf. ruling delivered by the First Criminal Trial Court on November 10, 1993 (copy of the file of the criminal proceeding against Ricardo Canese for the offenses of slander and injuria before the First Criminal Trial Court, file of attachments to the brief answering the application, and with observations on the brief with requests and arguments, tome I, attachment 4, folio 837). 38 Cf. appeal for reconsideration of judgment filed on November 12, 1993, by the complainants’