statements made on the “Radio Vall” program of May 10, 1990, and for written remarks made in a submission to the National Institute for Mutual Action (INAM). This decision was upheld at the second instance by the Second Chamber of the Criminal and Correctional Court of Mercedes Judicial Department on December 28, 1995. 44. The alleged victims filed an appeal for clarification [recurso de aclaratoria] with the same court, which was denied in a decision of March 26, 1996. They also filed an appeal for annulment and inapplicability of law [recurso de nulidad e inaplicabilidad de ley]. On April 18, 1996, the Second Chamber of the Criminal and Correctional Court of Mercedes granted an extraordinary appeal for unconstitutionality [recurso extraordinario de inconstitucionalidad] and referred it to the Supreme Court of Justice of Buenos Aires Province, denying the appeal for inapplicability of law. On September 10, 1996, the Provincial Supreme Court decided that the extraordinary appeal did not fulfill the requirements set forth in Article 349.1 of the CPP, and declared it inadmissible.43 45. The alleged victims filed an appeal for reversal [recurso de revocatoria] before the same Provincial Court, which denied it on September 23, 1996. On October 8, 1996, they filed an extraordinary federal appeal [recurso extraordinario federal] before the Provincial Supreme Court, alleging arbitrariness in the earlier judgments and the invalidity of the second hearing convened by the Second Chamber of the Criminal and Correctional Court of Mercedes Judicial Department. On November 26, 1996, the Supreme Court of Buenos Aires Province denied the federal appeal.44] 46. On December 11, 1996, the alleged victims filed an appeal for reversal [recurso de revocatoria] before the court a quo, which was denied in a resolution of December 27, 1996. On December 11, 1996, they also filed an application to compel jurisdiction [recurso de queja] before the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, which denied it on October 3, 1997, on the following grounds: “the extraordinary appeal, whose denial [gave rise to the application to compel jurisdiction] is inadmissible (Article 280 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure of the Nation).” The alleged victims were notified of this decision on October 7, 1997. On October 9, 1997, the alleged victims filed an appeal for reversal [recurso de revocatoria], which was denied by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation in a decision of which notification was given on December 16, 1997. 43 According to the petitioners, the appeal decision was based on the following decisions: “the special appeal filed at pp.1079-1088 does not meet the requirements set forth in Article 349.1 of the CPP, since although it denounced violation of Article 168 of the Constitution of the province, it is not based on the normative content of said provisions, but rather seeks to bring before this court for review alleged errors of judgment as the violation of the right of defense at trial, alleged procedural errors prior to the judgment, its arbitrariness, and infraction of specific procedural rules, as well as the way in which the matter has been resolved, matters not pertaining to the appeal itself and but rather pertaining to the inapplicability of the law (Article 350 of said Code, cf. agreements and judgments 92-I-209; Ac. 27,030, of 27-VI-78…)”. 44 The grounds given by the Provincial Supreme Court for its decision were: “That the decisions they cite regarding the admissibility of the appeals filed before the local courts do not justify, as a rule, invocation of the instance of Article 14 of Law 48, especially in cases such as this where the lower court errors regarding the matter cited only reflect the appellant’s personal disagreement with the interpretation of the sentencing court, so that they are not appropriate to that end, taking into account that the objection of arbitrariness regarding resolutions of this type is especially restrictive”.