12 did not have jurisdiction. “The government never again brought action” in this case. She testified that the agreement in question originated from a public law contract. She learned of the Supreme Court case from comments made by attorney Cavalloti, who drafted the complaint. Drawing upon her professional experience, she testified that preliminary objections that do not result in litigation of the facts are settled before the merits of the case are taken up. Her only direct involvement in the legal case was in drafting the briefs rebutting the preliminary objections and then later in signing off on a number of briefs concerning filing fees and the benefit of litigating without prepayment of filing fees. In her 40 years’ experience as an attorney, she had never seen a case where the filing fees were so high; she also stated that when the litigious amount in a proceeding is determinable but not pre-determined, as it was in the case of Mr. Cantos by virtue of the adjustment clause of the 1982 Agreement, the plaintiff ought not to be confronted with the problem of paying a 3 percent filing fee. She added that one need not be indigent to be permitted to litigate without prepayment of the filing fees; the only requirement is lack of sufficient means to underwrite the expenses of a case. Had he been granted permission to litigate without paying costs of court in advance, the filing fees charged would have been the minimum and would have been payable at the end of the proceeding. She explained that the filing fee is a percentage of the monetary relief the plaintiff is seeking and that in Santiago del Estero, it is a tax that goes directly to the general coffers. The fee is payable in two different ways, depending upon where the case is litigated: in the province, the entire amount must be paid upfront, when the trial begins; at the federal level, however, 50% can be paid upfront, and the other 50 % when the evidentiary phase of the proceedings gets underway. Then the costs of any evidence ordered have to be factored in, and are paid separately. At the present time, Mr. Cantos is engaged in symbolic acts of charity for the elderly and children, and has earned accolades from various authorities. C) EVALUATION OF THE EVIDENCE 36. This Court must point out that appendices 1 to 15 of the application and appendices 1 to 5, 9, 12, 15 to 18, 20, 22 to 52 of the response all pertain to facts that predate Argentina’s acceptance of the Court’s contentious jurisdiction. The other appendices, however, pertain to facts subsequent to Argentina’s acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction and will therefore be weighed by the Court, given the overall bearing they might have upon the case. In this regard, although the State objected to appendices 17, 18, 32, 33, 37, and 39 to 79, the Court notes that they are subsequent to the State’s acceptance of the Court’s contentious jurisdiction. The Court, therefore, will evaluate them when analyzing the conduct of the Argentine authorities, not just the Supreme Court but the other authorities in general. 37. The Court will not take into consideration appendices 38, 39, 40, 41, 44, 45, 54, and 56 to 68, as they concern a case involving Radiodifusora de Santiago del Estero which has no direct bearing upon the analysis of the relevant facts in this case.