4 unusual privilege to the accusing party in allowing them, 7 days later, an extension of the already completed hearing so they can respond to our arguments” and that “they were denied, of course, the chance to respond,” inasmuch as the accused “were not even present.” The petitioners contend that “[the] most serious part was that the appellate judges took those final statements of the plaintiffs and used them in their judgment to convict us.” They note that they appealed to the Supreme Court of the Province of Buenos Aires to set aside the judgment and find it unconstitutional and then filed an extraordinary appeal to the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, as well as a petition in error with the National Court, and all of them were denied. The petitioners are claiming that the alleged violation of the right to a defense “violates their right to equal protection under the law.” 23. The petitioners also assert that three of the civil court judges who heard the civil case against them were sanctioned for “delays and irregularities” and that they “violated the Chamber’s appeals procedure” in the case. The petitioners state that “of the 10 sitting judges in this jurisdiction, 3 were sanctioned” and the others “are joined together in an ‘Association of Judges of Mercedes,’” and therefore the petitioners believe that the judges of the Department of Mercedes could apply a “personal punishment” to them for denouncing the three sanctioned judges. The petitioners argue that they have been “unreasonably punished” in view of the “slowness of justice” in their case. 24. Lastly, the petitioners affirm that they have been deprived of the right to purchase and sell property since March 1996 and still face the “possibility of being convicted in the coming years” in violation of their right to due process. They allege that their precarious situation is a result of “malfeasance in office,” “irregularities,” “abuse of authority” and “denial and delay of justice” on the part of the judges who heard their case. Therefore, the petitioners state that “it is very difficult for this party, to achieve the minimal impartiality that any citizen can require” and that “this proves the rigid position that we have endured over the past 20 years, both in the criminal and the civil cases by judges of the city of Mercedes, and for the simple crime of slander.” 25. In their arguments on the merits, the petitioners state that the facts at issue constitute violations of Article 8, 13, 24 and 25 of the American Convention to the detriment of Carlos Memoli and Pablo Memoli. Consequently, they request that the State vacate the sentences for the offenses, stay the proceedings against Carlos Memoli and Pablo Memoli and lift the injunction on their assets. B. Position of the State 26. The State of Argentina claims that it was notified of the petition four years after it was received by the Office of the Executive Secretariat of the Inter-American Commission. It notes that the excessive delay in the “pre-admissibility” stage should be grounds for the Commission to refrain from entertaining the petition, inasmuch as it affects the rights and expectations of the respondent State, makes it difficult to take any preliminary steps to attempt to settle the controversy in a domestic forum or to reach a friendly settlement. 27. It contends that the petition before the Commission involves a private dispute stemming from personal conflicts between Mr. Carlos Memoli and Messrs. Antonio Guarracino, Humberto Romanello and Juan Bautista Ricardo Piriz. It maintains that the private criminal action for damages brought by these last three gentlemen stems from a belligerent relationship involving an Italian language course offered by the Italian Mutual Benefit Society. It further claims that the confrontation grew to greater proportions as a result of the criminal complaint for alleged fraud lodged by Mr. Carlos Memoli; the high public profile of the matter raised by articles published in the “La Libertad” newspaper and the two radio interviews given by the alleged victims. 28. The State argues that the alleged victims were tried and convicted, at both the trial and appeals level, with the assistance of an attorney and the opportunity to introduce evidence, all with full respect for fair trial rights. It asserts that Messrs. Carlos and Pablo Memoli were convicted on only some of the counts in the complaint and that the civil action brought by the plaintiffs in the context of the criminal proceeding was dismissed.