On May 5, 2017, the IACHR reiterated its request to the State for additional observations on merits. As of the date of adoption of this report the State had not presented its additional observations on merits. Neither party has expressed any interest in initiating a friendly settlement procedure. III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. The petitioners 7. The petitioners said that in 1996, Eduardo Rico was appointed Judge of the Sixth Labor Tribunal of the Judicial Department of San Isidro. 8. They said that after joining the tribunal, Mr. Rico realized that his colleagues were committing a series of irregularities and corrupt acts designed to benefit a particular group of lawyers close to the San Isidro Bar Association. Therefore, on November 20, 1997, the alleged victim filed a complaint with the Supreme Court of Justice of the Province of Buenos Aires, a copy of which was provided to the Bar Association, which was not a party in the proceeding. They said that, in parallel, other lawyers in the private sector lodged various complaints against the other judges on the Tribunal. 9. They said that after three years of continuous complaints, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Province of Buenos Aires decided to investigate the judges through the Office of Judicial Oversight (Oficina de Control Judicial). 10. According to the petitioners, in response, the Bar Association launched a defamation campaign against the alleged victim through its own media outlets, and even published a false psychiatric evaluation. They said that in view of its temerity, the Bar Association decided to withdraw that piece of evidence from the proceeding; nevertheless, by then, the defamatory effect had been achieved. 11. The petitioners informed that on June 1, 1999, the Bar Association filed a complaint against the alleged victim, which gave rise to proceedings before the Provincial Impeachment Jury. They said that the complaint interrupted the investigation that was being conducted into the three members of the Sixth Labor Tribunal. 12. They explained that the Impeachment Jury is a political body comprising lawyers and legislators elected on a case-by-case basis who, therefore, are not tenured, making them vulnerable to pressure. 13. They said that the Jury engaged in a series of “illegalities.” They alleged that it unlawfully extended in the plaintiff's favor the 15-day information submission deadline for summary proceedings established in Article 28 of Law 8085, on which basis the alleged victim requested that all proceedings subsequent to the expiration of that deadline be declared void. 14. They argued that the Jury prevented the alleged victim from presenting relevant evidence, while admitting all the evidence put forward by the plaintiff, as a result of which his right of defense was impaired. They said that the alleged victim denounced those flaws but the request was rejected by the Jury. 15. They said that on June 15, 2000, the Jury passed judgment, finding against the alleged victim, and ordered his dismissal and declared him ineligible for any post in the judiciary for having committed various violations of Law 8085. 16. According to the petitioners, on July 6, 2000, the alleged victim filed a special nullity appeal (recurso extraordinario de nulidad) against the judgment, which was turned down on August 30, 2000. 17. The petitioners claim that on September 22, 2000, the alleged victim filed a special federal appeal against the preceding decision with the Supreme Court of Justice of the Province of Buenos Aires, which was denied on November 29, 2000.