8 16 intention to ’whitewash’ six years of abuse and corrupt scheming,” “with clear intentions of taking over 17 and managing in a fascist and arbitrary way endorsed by members of the executive board,” among other statements made by him. 46. Statements made by Mr. Pablo Memoli included: a) on the radio program May 4, 1990, 18 referring to the plaintiffs, he stated that: “these men act with mendacity, ruses and with a lot of trickery;” 19 “we want to put an end to some of the corrupt ones…here we have to extirpate two or three people;” 20 21 “who we believe are corrupt;” “you open the newspaper and the corrupt ones are out the next day;” b) on the radio program May 10, 1990, Pablo Memoli, in the same context as these events, stated that: “…these [guys] made that bill of sale knowing, maybe that it was wrong, that’s why we explained it clearly 22 in our newspaper regarding the fraudulent intent …b);” “… we were sure, … we do not need to lie, not 23 even play a little trick in anything, at all, …, and they do, and they do and they are doing so.” Other 24 statements put forth in different newspaper articles labeled the plaintiffs as “possible criminals,” among other statements. 47. The decision of Court No. 7 for Criminal and Correctional Matters of the Judicial Department of Mercedes was appealed and upheld by the Second Appellate Chamber for Criminal and 25 Correctional Matters of the Judicial Department of Mercedes, on December 28, 1995. The alleged victims filed a motion for clarification of judgment with the same court, which was denied in a decision on 26 March 26, 1996. Additionally, they filed an appeal to set aside judgment (based on procedural flaws) and for reversal of judgment (based on inapplicability of the law). On April 18, 1996, the Second Appellate Chamber for Criminal and Correctional Matters of Mercedes granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court on the basis of unconstitutionality and forwarded the appeal to the Supreme Court of Justice of the Province of Buenos Aires, while dismissing the appeal for finding of inapplicability of the 27 law. On September 10, 1996, the Supreme Court of the Province determined that the appeal did not 16 Annex 3. Trial court judgment issued on December 29, 1994, Court for Criminal and Correctional Matters No. 7 of the Judicial Department of Mercedes, pg. 72 letter b). 17 Annex 3. Trial court judgment issued on December 29, 1994, Court for Criminal and Correctional Matters No. 7 of the Judicial Department of Mercedes, pg. 65 letter c). 18 Annex 3. Trial court judgment issued on December 29, 1994, Court for Criminal and Correctional Matters No. 7 of the Judicial Department of Mercedes, pg. 59 letter e). 19 Annex 3. Trial court judgment issued on December 29, 1994, Court for Criminal and Correctional Matters No. 7 of the Judicial Department of Mercedes, pg. 61, letter h). 20 Annex 3. Trial court judgment issued on December 29, 1994, Court for Criminal and Correctional Matters No. 7 of the Judicial Department of Mercedes, pg. 61 letter i). 21 Annex 3. Trial court judgment issued on December 29, 1994, Court for Criminal and Correctional Matters No. 7 of the Judicial Department of Mercedes, pg. 62 letter j). 22 Annex 3. Trial court judgment issued on December 29, 1994, Court for Criminal and Correctional Matters No. 7 of the Judicial Department of Mercedes, pg. 65 letter c). 23 Annex 3. Trial court judgment issued on December 29, 1994, Court for Criminal and Correctional Matters No. 7 of the Judicial Department of Mercedes, pg. 65 letter d). 24 Annex 3. Trial court judgment issued on December 29, 1994, Court for Criminal and Correctional Matters No. 7 of the Judicial Department of Mercedes, pgs. 47-57, point 8). 25 Annex 2. Appellate court judgment handed down on December 28, 1995, Second Appellate Chamber for Criminal and Correctional Matters of the Judicial Department of Mercedes, pgs. 53-61. 26 Annex 5. Judgment of April 25, 1996, Second Appellate Chamber for Criminal and Correctional Matters of the Judicial Department of Mercedes, Case No. 57.311 bis “Motion for Clarification of Judgment.” Annex to the original petition of the petitioners of January 28, 1998 (received on February 12, 1998). 27 Annex 6. Judgment of April 18, 1996, Second Appellate Chamber for Criminal and Correctional Matters of the Judicial Department of Mercedes, Case No. 57.311 bis case heading “Motion for general injunction of assets in case 78.673,” Certificate of notification. Annex to the original petition of the petitioners of January 28, 1998 (received on February 12, 1998).