36 March 22, 1994 be annulled (supra para. 69(15)), that decisions and judgments No. 18 of November 4, 1997 (supra para. 69(20)), and No. 179 of May 2, 2001, be annulled (supra para. 69(41)), and that the case be declared “dismissed.”75 69(43) On September 7, 2001, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Paraguay issued interlocutory order No. 1487, rejecting the motion for dismissal filed by Mr. Canese and his lawyer on October 30, 2000 (supra para. 69(38)), against interlocutory order No. 1645 of October 4, 2000 (supra para. 69(37)), because it was totally inadmissible to annul the interlocutory order declaring that the legal proceeding on the action on unconstitutionality had extinguished.”76 69(44) On November 19, 2001, the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Paraguay issued decision and judgment No. 880, in which it decided the petition for clarification filed by the complainants’ lawyer on May 7, 2001, concerning a decision on costs (supra para. 69(41)). The Criminal Chamber decided that each party should assume the respective costs.77 69(45) On February 11, 2002, Ricardo Canese and his lawyers filed an appeal for review before the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Paraguay, based, inter alia, on “the recent entry into force of the new Code of Criminal Procedure and the new Penal Code.” The appeal asked the Chamber to consider “that the appeal for review of sentence was reiterated, and the extinguishment and prescription of the criminal action requested”; also, that final judgment No. 17 of March 22, 1994, decision and judgment No. 18 of November 4, 1997, and decision and judgment No. 179 of May 2, 2001, should be annulled (supra para. 69(15), 69(20) and 69(41)), and to declare the dismissal of the proceedings.78 69(46) On May 6, 2002, the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Paraguay delivered decision and judgment No. 374, deciding “not to admit the appeal for review filed by Ricardo Canese” on February 11, 2002 (supra para. 69(45)). Among other elements, the grounds for this decision were that “the brief requesting the appeal for review did not offer ‘any evidence or indicate new facts’ 75 Cf. brief submitted by Ricardo Canese and his lawyer before the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Paraguay on October 15, 2001 (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 II, attachment 4, folios 1170 and 1171). 76 Cf. interlocutory order No. 1487 issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Paraguay on September 7, 2001 (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 II, attachment 4, folio 1177). 77 Cf. decision and judgment No. 880 issued by the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Paraguay on November 19, 2001 (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 II, attachment 4, folios 1172 to 1173). 78 Cf. appeal for review filed by Ricardo Canese and his lawyers before the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Paraguay on February 11, 2002 (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 II, attachment 4, folios 1185 to 1190).