25 an administrative act.” This, the State contends, is the reason why it “denies the extrinsic and intrinsic authenticity, legal validity, legal efficacy and effectiveness of this agreement.” The September 3, 1996 Supreme Court ruling is just, because it “decided the litis on the basis of the claims made by the parties, working from the principle of conformity, weighing the evidence to arrive at a decision.” It cannot be said that the Supreme Court took ten years to decide on the extinction of the obligation due to the running of the statute of limitations, since the basis of the judgment delivered goes to the question of the validity of the agreement that it was being asked to enforce.” The legal validity of the agreement had to be examined, because Mr. Cantos’ suit was premised upon “the existence and validity of an agreement that the respondents contested;” were this a valid contract, the statute of limitations would be longer than it would be on a non-contractual responsibility. Once the agreement was declared invalid, the statute of limitations became two years. Therefore, the statute of limitations had already run by the rime the case was presented to the Supreme Court. The State, therefore, denies the attribution of international responsibility for violation of Article 8 of the American Convention; d. Argentine law provides that “the filing fee shall be the costs of trial and shall ultimately be paid by the parties, at rates that the law shall dictate”, so that the “filing fee shall be figured as a percentage of the amount of relief being claimed.” It is the plaintiff that makes the calculation. This is an objective figure and does not constitute a restriction on access to the courts; it is a tax for someone who “loses the trial.” Despite having turned down the plaintiff’s request to be allowed to litigate without paying filing fees, “Mr. Cantos persisted in petitioning the court until by the time the final judgment was delivered, he had paid nothing in the way of filing fees.” The State contends that “Mr. Cantos “was never denied access to the courts, and the denial of the benefit of litigating without paying filing fees did not affect delivery of the final judgment in case C-1099.” The State therefore requested that the allegation of a violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention be rejected; and e. The law provides that professional fees are to be percentages of the amount of relief being claimed. Therefore, the total amount is because of the large amount of relief that plaintiff was claiming and is a product of the number of motions that the plaintiff himself lost with court costs.” Although Mr. Cantos lost and was ordered to pay costs, the State had to pay 50 percent of the costs incurred for the court-appointed experts, because “they are entitled to claim up to 50 percent from the party who has not lost the case and not been ordered to pay costs [...], and can claim the other 50 percent from the party who lost the case.” 47. In its submissions, the Argentine State argued that the Court does not have competence, ratione materiae, to interpret or apply the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man in a contentious case, and asked the Court to deny the Inter-American Commission’s petition that the State be held responsible for violation of the right to a fair trial (Article XVIII) and the right of petition (Article XXIV) protected under the American Declaration. The Court’s observations