21 On October 13, 1994, Mr. Cantos requested clarification of the court order concerning honoraria87 and on December 7, 1994, asked that incidental proceedings be instituted for the question of the filing fee and the attorneys’ and experts’ fees, to avoid further delay in the continuation of the case.88 s. On December 12, 1994, the Court refused to institute incidental proceedings for the question of attorneys’ and experts’ fees and advised that proceedings on the matter of the filing fee had been instituted on October 13.89 Finally, on December 17, 1996, the Supreme Court decided the matter of attorneys’ and experts’ fees on the basis of law 21,839, which establishes the percentages that must go toward these fees on the basis of the amounts involved in the case. The Court set the fees of the intervening attorneys (Horacio Ángel Lamas, Claudia Graciela Reston, Estanislao González Bergez, Edgardo Daniel Migro, Norma Mabel Vicente Soutullo, César David Graziani, Carlos Raúl Ambrosio, Guillermo Adolfo Heisinger, María Eugenia Galindez, José Osvaldo D’Alessio, Mario Jaime Kestelboim, Manuel Luis de Palacios, Julio C. Gónzalez, María Josefina Zavala, Washington Inca Cardoso and Alejandro Cáceres Llamosas) and of the State’s technical consultant (Néstor Ramón Zubielqui).90 In that same decision, the Court also determined that the figure of 6,948,835.00 (six million nine hundred forty-eight thousand eight hundred thirty-five Argentine pesos, equivalent to the same amount in United States dollars), which an October 4, 1994 ruling had provisionally set as the fees owed to the intervening attorneys and the two court-appointed experts (supra 43.r), would be the definitive figure. On September 8, 1997, the corresponding Federal Court acquitted Mr. Cantos of the charges against him.91 On April 14, 1997, nine of the professionals for whom fees had been ordered92 requested combined advanced attachment of any amount that Mr. José María Cantos might be entitled to receive “from the complaint he filed with the OAS’ Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and/or anything else that might be his.” The Supreme Court acceded to the request and so ordered that very same day. On November 27, 1997, the Court ordered attachment on behalf of Dr. Raul Diego Huidobro as well. Consequences of the proceeding before the Supreme Court t. Because of his failure to pay the judicial fee and the attorneys’ and experts’ fees, a “general restraining order” was issued against Mr. Cantos, preventing him from engaging in his business activities.93 87 Testimony of María Dolores Spaini de Retondo before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, June 17, 2002; Supreme Court Case File C-1099, Volume IV, f. 645. 88 Supreme Court Case File C-1099, Volume IV, f. 665. 89 Supreme Court Case File C-1099, Volume IV, f. 666 reverse side. Supreme Court Case File C-1099, Volume XII, fs. 2328 to 2336. 90 91 Criminal complaint dated December 29, 1972, brought by the attorney for Mr. And Mrs. Cantos -Dr. C. N. Neme—alleging usury and improper withholding of a private document, Criminal and Correctional Court, First Rotation. Court ruling ordering that the Governor be stripped of his authorities and that the proceedings be sent up to the Federal Judge, Appendix 10 of the reply. 92 Osvaldo Cristóbal Marum, Juan Bautista Viegas, César David Graziani, Santiago Bargalló Beade, Norma Mabel Vicente Soutullo, Claudia Graciela Reston, Jorge Alberto Jáuregui, Estanislao González Bergez and Edgardo Daniel Migro. 93 Decision, dated October 9, 1996, of the National Court of First Instance for Administrative Litigation, No. 2-SEC. No. 4. “National Treasury v. José María Cantos for nonpayment of court filing fees and fine,” Case File No. 24,136, appendix 75 of the complaint.