2 8. On January 15, 2009, the petitioners submitted additional arguments on the merits, which were forwarded to the State on March 4, 2009. 9. On March 11, 2009, after granting an extension to the State, the Commission received a communication from it reiterating its prior arguments on the merits and requesting the IACHR to “reject the arguments on the merits put forth by the petitioner.” On July 6, 2009, these arguments were forwarded to the petitioners. 10. On May 13, 2009, July 27, 2009 and September 4, 2009, the Commission received additional arguments on the merits from the petitioners, which were forwarded to the State on July 6, 2009, August 11, 2009, and September 17, 2009, respectively. 11. On August 11, 2009 and September 18, 2009, the State submitted additional briefs, reiterating its arguments on the merits from earlier briefs. These communications were forwarded to the petitioners on August 24, 2009 and November 23, 2009, respectively. 12. The IACHR received additional arguments from the petitioners on February 1, 2010, April 28, 2010 and April 28, 2011, requesting a ruling on the merits of the case and providing copies of parts of the record of the proceedings in the civil case. III. POSITION OF THE PARTIES A. Petitioners 13. The petitioners contend that the Executive Officers of the Italian Mutual Benefit Society engaged in the irregular sale of burial vaults in the cemetery of the Municipality of San Andres de Giles over a five year period, promising official title to the vaults, which were never provided. They charge that the Municipal Government gave land to the Italian Mutual Benefit Society for a period of 40 years at the symbolic price of one peso in order to create an “Italian pantheon” at the cemetery, through sales carried out by a public notary, a Justice of the Peace, a mayor and 12 city council members. The petitioners argue that the members who bought vaults from the Italian Mutual Benefit Society paid 20 pesos per month over 36 months without receiving “any property at all.” They claim that Mr. Carlos Memoli filed a criminal complaint about these acts and that the Judge overseeing the case investigation found the burial vaults in the municipal cemetery negotiated by the Italian Society to be an “impossible subject of a contract and naturally invalid.” 14. The petitioners note that the daily newspaper “La Libertad,” of which Mr. Pablo Memoli was managing editor, published articles denouncing the alleged irregularity in the sale of the burial vaults at the municipal cemetery, as well as alleged mismanagement of the Italian Mutual Benefit Society. They further contend that on two occasions they participated in broadcasts on “Radio Vall” during which they denounced the same acts. They allege that based on the aforementioned denunciations, Messrs. Antonio Guarracino, Humberto Romanello and Juan B. Piriz, respectively president, secretary and treasurer of the Italian Mutual Benefit Society, filed a private criminal action (querella) against the alleged victims for the crimes of calumny (calumnia) and slander (injuria), as provided for in Articles 109 and 110 of the Criminal Code of Argentina. 15. On December 29, 1994, the alleged victims were convicted under a judgment issued by Judge No. 7 for Criminal and Correctional Matters of the Judicial Department of Mercedes. Said decision was upheld on appeal in a judgment issued by the Second Appellate Chamber for Criminal and Correctional Matters of the Judicial Department of Mercedes on December 28, 1995. The petitioners indicated that they presented a series of remedies challenging this decision, the final one being a a motion for reconsideration of an interlocutory decision (recurso de reposición) denied by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation on December 16, 1997. 16. The petitioners state that on December 30, 1997 a civil suit was brought against them for the same offenses that were the subject of the private criminal action (querella) for damages, eight years