17 Concerning the opinion on an alleged negotiated agreement h. On June 1 and 2, 1989, 15 Senators wrote to the Treasury Solicitor of the Nation requesting that he take charge of the matter and find a solution to Mr. Cantos’ request for an out-of-court settlement.46 On September 10, 1990, the Office of the Treasury Solicitor authorized an effort to find a negotiated settlement between Mr. Cantos and the Ministry of the Interior.47 In cases such as this one, the law48 provides that “in such cases, all court proceedings will have to be suspended.”49 i. On June 6, 1991, Mr. Cantos filed a brief with the Supreme Court alluding to the negotiated settlement process. He attached relevant documents and requested that they be kept in a safe. He also requested certified copies of those documents.50 That same day, the Supreme Court sent the documents to the co-respondents for five days.51 On July 4, 1991, the Office of the State’s Attorney for the Province answered, alleging the procedural impropriety of the measure claimed by Mr. Cantos inasmuch as it was time-barred and proper procedure was not followed.52 The following day, the Ministry of the Interior denied that any such negotiated settlement existed and stated that no State authority had signed such an agreement.53 j. On June 15, 1992, the Office of the Treasury Solicitor ordered the Director of the Legal Opinions Office and the Secretary of the National Settlements Commission of the Solicitor’s Office to “report on the existence of the opinion that the agency issued mentioning or analyzing the legal suit that Mr. José María Cantos had brought against the Argentine State or the Province of Santiago del Estero.”54 The following day, the Deputy Director General of Coordination of the State Attorneys Corps told the National Director of the Office of Legal Opinions that no clearance had been given for a negotiated agreement with Mr. Cantos.55 On July 2, 1992, the National Treasury Solicitor spoke with the former solicitor, who denied the authenticity of the opinions from the National Treasury Solicitor’s Office that bore his signature and that were introduced as evidence in the case.56 On July 7, 1992, the Solicitor requested 45 Supreme Court Case File C-1099, Volume VIII, f. 1452. 46 Letters from lawmakers to the Treasury Solicitor of the Nation, supporting the out-of-court settlement allowed under the law to settle the dispute pending from 1989, appendix 32 of the complaint. 47 Supreme Court Case File C-1099, Volume III, at 487 to 504; and Opinion of the Treasury Solicitor of the Nation, September 12, 1990, appendix 35 of the complaint. 48 Law No. 23,696 and its regulatory decree No. 1105/89 (Article 55, paragraph g). 49 Supreme Court Case File C-1099, Volume III, f. 477 to 486. 50 Supreme Court Case File C-1099, Volume II, f. 382 et seq. 51 Supreme Court Case File C-1099, Volume II, f. 383 reverse side. 52 Supreme Court Case File C-1099, Volume II, f. 392 et seq. 53 Supreme Court Case File C-1099, Volume II, f. 394 et seq. Supreme Court Case File C-1099, Volume III, f. 440. 54 55 Supreme Court Case File C-1099, Volume III, f. 444. 56 Supreme Court Case File C-1099, Volume III, f. 462.