18 the intervention of the Office of the Solicitor General, to bring this background information to the Supreme Court’s attention.57 On September 24, 1992, Mr. Cantos filed an appeal with the Supreme Court asking it to reverse its decision of September 17, 1992, whereby it agreed to admit the statements signed by the former solicitor wherein he states that the documents tendered by Mr. Cantos are fakes.58 The Deputy Solicitor from the Office of the Solicitor General of the Nation filed a complaint against Mr. Cantos with Criminal and Correctional Judge No. 3, Carlos Liporaci. The latter, after taking testimony and expert opinions, decided to acquit Mr. Cantos on October 17, 1994, reasoning that “defendant can hardly be blamed for problems inside the Advisory Commission [of the Treasury Solicitor’s Office] and, as the expert analysis showed, cannot be convicted of an alleged forgery and/or fraud against the opposing party by means of mutilation, substitution, or secretion of court papers, or by similar procedural deceit.”59 Concerning the litigation fees and the amount of relief plaintiff was seeking k. On August 31, 1987, Mr. Cantos showed proof of having paid the minimum filing fee, since the amount he was seeking in his suit was undetermined. He also requested permission to litigate without paying court fees in advance, which the law allows.60 On September 1, 1987, the Supreme Court stated that it had examined the estimate done by Mr. Cantos. That estimate stated That under sections 2 and 3 –titled COMMITMENT TO PAY and INDEXING PLUS INTEREST- of the aforesaid agreement, which is the basis of the present ordinary legal action, the amount of relief being sought and the sum claimed by the undersigned in the introduction to this complaint, was arrived at by updating the 130,245,739.30 (the peso amount, under Law 18,188, of the administrative claim filed on May 23, 1974) from its value as of May 23, 1974 to its value as of December 31, 1984, based on the exchange rate of the United States dollar, plus a ONE percent daily interest rate. From December 31, 1984 and thereafter, a punitive interest rate of TWO percent is owed until payment is made. l. On September 3, 1987, the Supreme Court ordered Mr. Cantos to pay the filing fees within the next five days, as the amount of relief sought in the complaint had been calculated and certified by the Treasury representative.61 On February 12, 1991, the State requested suspension of the case in the Supreme Court so long as Mr. Cantos did not pay the filing fees.62 The Court agreed to suspend the case on February 18, 1991.63 On May 21, 1991, after an appeal and the corresponding transmissions, Mr. Cantos showed that he had paid the minimum filing fee, inasmuch as the amount of relief being sought would be unspecified.64 57 Supreme Court Case File C-1099, Volume III, f. 540. 58 Supreme Court Case File C-1099, Volume III, f. 557 et seq. 59 Supreme Court Case File C-1099, Volume IV, f. 655 et seq. 60 Supreme Court Case File C-1099, Volume II, f. 266. Supreme Court Case File C-1099, Volume II, fs. 266 and 267. 61 62 Supreme Court Case File C-1099, Volume II, f. 353. 63 Supreme Court Case File C-1099, Volume II, f. 353 reverse side. 64 Supreme Court Case File C-1099, Volume II, f. 380.