that no further evidence was pending production185 and, on March 6, ordered the parties to be served notice to submit their arguments on the evidence that had been produced within a period of six days, counted as of the fifth day after notice was served of said decision.186 98. On April 6, 2000 the petitioner’s attorney submitted his arguments on the merits of the evidence introduced in the proceedings and asked for compensation that would take into account his client’s physical and mental disability and include the treatments recommended by the professionals who intervened as expert witnesses.187 He also argued that “proof has been given of the plaintiff’s significant and irreversible injuries and disability, as well as the fact that prior to the accident he was a boy who took part (like any other child) in all school and activities and sports, and that after the accident he could not take part in them as he did before.” On April 11, 2000 the EMGE’s attorney submitted her arguments on the merits of the evidence presented, and requested that the case be dismissed.188 On April 18, 2000,189 May 23, 2000190 and August 22, 2000191 the petitioner’s attorney submitted motions requesting the judge to issue a ruling. B.5. Judgments of first and second instance 99. In the trial court judgment, rendered on September 7, 2000, the court ruled that the complaint was admissible, establishing that the injury inflicted upon Sebastián Furlan was the consequence of negligence on the part of the State, as the owner and the party responsible for the property. This, given that the property was in a state of abandonment and disrepair, lacked any type of perimeter fence to prevent people entering and had hazardous elements. In addition, the judgment established that local residents regarded this property as a public square or a site of public use, where children went to play on a regular basis.192 100. In its judgment the court deemed proven that Sebastián Furlan “suffers from a posttraumatic organic disorder and an abnormal neurosis with an obsessive compulsive manifestation (with deterioration of his personality), which has determined a significant degree of mental disability […] and irreversible disorders in the cognitive and motor areas.” However, the court considered that in this case Sebastián Furlan also bore some responsibility, given that he “willingly and aware of the risks that could ensue from playing in unsuitable areas, with unfamiliar and abandoned elements,” had behaved in a manner 185 Cf. Certification of March 2, 2000 (file of appendices to the report, volume I, appendix 6, page 481). 186 Cf. Certification submitted by the Federal Judge of First Instance of March 2, 2000 (file of appendices to the report, volume I, appendix 6, page 481). 187 Cf. Closing arguments submitted by Sebastián Furlan’s attorney on April 6, 2000 (file of appendices to the report, volume I, appendix 6, page 501 to 508). 188 to 514). Cf. Closing arguments of April 11, 2000 (file of appendices to the report, volume I, appendix 6, page 509 189 Cf. Brief of Sebastián Furlan’s attorney of April 18, 2000 (file of appendices to the report, volume I, appendix 6, page 483). 190 Cf. Brief of Sebastián Furlan’s attorney of May 23, 2000 (file of appendices to the report, volume I, appendix 6, page 494). 191 Cf. Brief of Sebastián Furlan’s attorney of August 22, 2000 (file of appendices to the report, volume I, appendix 6, page 515). 192 Cf. Judgment issued by National Court No. 9 of Civil and Commercial Matters, pages 518 and 519. 34