3 after they took place. They note that pursuant to Article 4037 of the Civil Code of Argentina, the period of time established to pursue claims of a civil nature lapses after two years and yet, as of August 6, 2002, the judge hearing the civil suit for damages had not yet ruled on the statute of limitations. 17. The alleged victims reiterate in several additional briefs, the latest one dated April 28, 2011, that the civil suit for damages brought against them has still not been settled. However, they state that under an out-of-court settlement agreement entered into between Messrs. Humberto Romanello, Antonio Guarracino and the Memolis, these two plaintiffs dropped their civil suit against them leaving, nonetheless, Mr. Juan Piriz as the sole plaintiff in said action. 18. They further claim that, as part of the private criminal action for damages lodged against them, a “general restraining order on the sale of their assets” (inhibición general de bienes) was issued, based on a motion filed by the plaintiffs. This motion led to the granting of an injunction on behalf of the plaintiffs in order to ensure their potential right to receive payment for damages as well as ensure payment of attorney’s fees. The injunctive measure was ordered in March of 1996 and then, following an appeal filed by the petitioners, it was upheld on April 18 of that same year. The petitioners note that at the end of 1996 they paid the plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees. They contend that, even though they did so, the injunction on their assets has been reinstated several times since then in the context of the civil case against them and, as of the date of their arguments on the merits of April 30, 2009, they are still “restrained under court injunction from selling [their] assets.” 19. The petitioners contend that the judicial officials who decided the private criminal action for damages did not take into account the evidence on the veracity of the statements printed in “La Libertad” newspaper and that during the appeals proceeding several irregularities were committed which infringed on their right to a defense. They allege that the Second Appellate Chamber for Criminal and Correction Matters of the Judicial Department of Mercedes convened a surprise hearing and held it without their presence. Specifically, they claim that after the hearing of November 28, 1995, another hearing was granted for the plaintiffs to have the opportunity to reply to the arguments of defendants. They state that said hearing was a second opportunity for the plaintiffs to put forth their arguments by reading a document. They allege that these acts were in violation of the rules in effect at the time under Article 423, section 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Province of Buenos Aires. The petitioners note that these alleged violations of their right to a defense were recognized by the Supreme Court of the Province of Buenos Aires and the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation. 20. They argue that Mr. Carlos Memoli was sentenced to a suspended term of one month in prison because his attorney used the word “unscrupulous” in an administrative proceeding, in referring to the members of the Executive Committee of the Italian Mutual Benefit Society. They assert that pursuant to the Criminal Code of Argentina, making slanderous statements in a court proceeding file is not subject to punishment. They note that Mr. Pablo Memoli was sentenced to a suspended term of five months of prison for publishing newspaper articles denouncing the alleged irregularity in the management of the Italian Mutual Benefit Society of the city of San Andres de Giles. The petitioners allege that they made the statements for which they were convicted as part of the private criminal action for damages in response to statements made by the plaintiffs. They claim that they made their statements based on the “present public interest”, inasmuch as “the mayor [of the city] submitted a bill to the 12 [municipal] council members for them to approve a 40 year leasing ordinance for the institution [the Italian Mutual Benefit Society]” and that this argument was “proven and ignored by the triers of fact.” 21. Lastly, the petitioners allege that in April of 2005, they were notified by Federal Court to make a deposit to the order of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, under court order to comply, of the sum of 2000 Argentine pesos as a result of the denial of the extraordinary appeal to this court on October 5, 1997. 22. The petitioners contend that they endured “a series of irregularities and acts of negligence” during the criminal case as a consequence of an alleged violation of their right to a defense. They assert that the criminal appeals court “violates the law with impunity when the Chamber affords an