9 meet the requirements set forth in Article 349 section 1 of the Criminal Code of Procedure (CPP), and 28 found it inadmissible. 48. The alleged victims filed an Appeal for Reversal of Judgment of the same court before the high court of the province, which denied it on September 23, 1996. On October 8, 1996 they lodged 29 an Extraordinary Appeal to the Federal Jurisdiction before the Provincial Supreme Court, alleging arbitrariness in the prior judgments and invalidity of the second hearing convened by the Second Appellate Chamber for Criminal and Correctional Matters of the Judicial Department of Mercedes. On 30 November 26, 1996, the Supreme Court of the Province of Buenos Aires denied the federal appeal. 49. On December 11, 1996, the alleged victims filed an Appeal for Reversal of Judgment with the court a quo, which was denied in a ruling on December 27, 1996. On December 11, 1996, they also filed a petition in error for denial of appeal before the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, which denied it on October 3, 1997, on the following grounds: “the [original] appeal [to the Supreme Court of the Nation], the denial of which [prompted the petition in error for denial of appeal] is inadmissible (Article 280 31 of the Civil and Commercial Procedural Code of the Nation).” Said decision was served on the alleged victims on October 7, 1997. On October 9, 1997 the alleged victims filed a motion for reconsideration of an interlocutory decision (recurso de reposición), which was denied by the Supreme Court of Justice of 32 the Nation in a decision served on the appellant on December 16, 1997. 50. On March 1, 1996, in the context of the criminal damage proceedings against Carlos and Pablo Memoli, plaintiffs Antonio Guarracino, Humberto Romanello and Juan Bautista R. Piriz requested a “general injunction for the sale or encumbrance of assets” against the Memolis. The plaintiffs claim to have obtained, at that time, “two favorable rulings,” and that “if the result persisted, once the Supreme Court ruled, the right to collect for damages, as well as professional fees of the attorneys involved, will 33 arise.” On March 8, 1996, the general injunction on assets requested by the plaintiffs was granted by a 28 According to the petitioners, the decision on this appeal was based on the following opinions: “The appeal to the Supreme Court on pgs. 1079-1088, does not fulfill the requirements set forth in Article 349 of the CPP [Criminal Procedure Code], inasmuch as although it charges a violation of Article 168 of the Constitution of the Province, it has no legal basis in the normative content of said precepts, but rather an attempt is made to bring before this Tribunal for examination alleged errors in trying the case such as violation of the right to defense at trial, alleged procedural flaws prior to sentencing, arbitrariness therein and breaking specific procedural rules, as well as the way in which the issue has been resolved, [which are] topics outside of the appeal itself though they are indeed appropriate for a motion of inapplicability of the law (Article 350 of the above-cited Code, cfr. Decisions and judgments 92-I-209; Ac. 2,030…)”. Annex 1. Brief of the petitioners of October 8, 1996, addressed to the Supreme Court of Justice of the Province of La Plata, in re/ Federal Appeal to Supreme Court, pg. 25. 29 Cfr. Annex 1. Brief of the petitioners of October 8, 1996, addressed to the Supreme Court of Justice of the Province of La Plata, in re/ Federal Appeal to Supreme Court. 30 The Provincial Supreme Court provided the following basis in law for its decision: “That decisions declared on admissibility of appeals filed before local Courts do not justify, as a rule, the granting of the petition of Article 14 of Law 48, especially in cases such as this one in which the lower court errors expressed on the subject, only suggest personal differences of the appellant with the interpretation made by the court handing down judgment, and therefore they are not suitable for such purposes taking into account that the flaw of arbitrariness with respect to rulings of that nature is especially restrictive.” Legal Basis 6 (Visto 6). Judgment issued on November 26, 1996, Supreme Court of Justice of the Province of Buenos Aires, Ac. 63.249, case titled “Alberto Salaberry and Osvaldo O. Lossino on behalf of Antonio Guarracino, Humberto Romanello and Juan B.R. Piriz bringing suit for wrongful accusation of a crime and slander against Carlos and Pablo Memoli.” Annex to the original petition of the petitioners of January 28, 1998 (received on February 12, 1998). 31 Annex 7. Judgment issued on October 3, 1997, Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, Case No. 55.964 case titled Salaberry, Alberto et all v. Memoli, Carlos and Memoli, Pablo in re complaint for wrongful accusation of crime and slander,” S. 1662. XXXII. Appeal on facts. Annex to the original petition of the petitioners of January 28, 1998 (received on February 12, 1998). 32 Annex 8. Judgment issued on December 10, 1997, Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, Case No. 55.964 case titled Salaberry, Alberto et all v. Memoli, Carlos and Memoli, Pablo in re complaint for wrongful accusation of crime and slander,” S. 1662. XXXII. Appeal on facts. Annex to the original petition of the petitioners of January 28, 1998 (received on February 12, 1998). 33 Annex 9. Brief of Alberto Salaberry of March 1, 1996 addressed to Court No. 1 for Criminal and Correctional Matters, Motion for General Injunction of Assets, “Salaberry, Alberto et al on behalf of Mr. Antonio Guarracino et al v. Memoli, Pablo et al in re complaint for wrongful accusation of crime and slander” (page 5). Annex to the original petition of the petitioners of January 28, 1998 (received on February 12, 1998).