the action for revocation was to be published in the press. 32 On June 18, 1992, the judge received an official document from the Federal Notifying Officer in which the latter stated that: “I am returning the enclosed identity card because I was unable to deliver it. Having visited the address I was given […] [I was informed] that Ms. Raghda Habbal does not live there, but no other information was forthcoming. 33 The next day, the Acting Federal Judge ordered that Ms. Habbal be notified by publication. 34 On July 2, 1992, the Acting Federal Judge directed that the legal notice be published in the Official Gazette, and this was done. 35 36. On September 14, 1992, the Acting Federal Judge informed the public defender of developments, as Ms. Habbal had failed to contact the court following notification by publication. 36 The public defender asked the Acting Federal Judge to make the resolution of Ms. Habbal’s case conditional on what was decided in the case against Mr. Al Kassar. 37 The Acting Federal Judge decided to reject the public defender’s request, because Ms. Habbal’s had applied for citizenship personally and voluntarily. 38 The public defender later argued that the fact Mr. Al Kassar allegedly acted in bad faith in applying for residence did not necessarily mean that the same was true of his wife. He also stated that the question of whether false statements had been made in public documents had to be proven and noted that Resolution 1088 had been issued without Ms. Habbal’s involvement in the proceedings. 39 37. On November 6, 1992, the Acting Federal Judge asked Federal Court No. 1 of Mendoza to inform him, as a “matter of extreme urgency,” whether a decision had been rendered in the criminal proceedings against Mr. Al Kassar regarding the following: “a) Police Certificate No. 260 issued by the Mendoza Police, Sec. Villa Nueva, Guaymallén on 01/17/1992 […]; and b) the option contract for the purchase of a rural property signed before the Notary Public […], in the city of Montevideo, Oriental Republic of Uruguay, dated 01/17/92 […].” 40 In response to this request, Federal Judge No. 1 of Mendoza replied that he had not rendered a decision on the matters in question. 41 38. On October 27, 1994, the Acting Federal Judge delivered a judgment in the case of “Habbal Raghda for review and/or revocation or annulment of citizenship,” declaring invalid the act by which Ms. Habbal was granted citizenship and canceling her national identity card and any other identity document she might have been granted as an Argentine citizen. In the considering paragraphs, the judgment stated that Article 15 of Decree 3213/84 provided for the revocation of citizenship if it had been obtained fraudulently. It was also pointed out in the document that the case law on the subject recognized that citizenship could be revoked if it was proven that the person who obtained it did not meet the basic conditions established 32 Cf. Decision of the Acting Federal Judge, dated June 11, 1992 (evidence file, folios 34 to 36). 33 Cf. Note from the Federal Notifying Officer to the Judge, dated June 18, 1992 (evidence file, folio 38). 34 Cf. Decision of the Federal Judge, dated June 19, 1992 (evidence file, folio 40). Cf. Decision of the Federal Judge, dated July 3, 1992, and proof of publication of the notification in the Official Gazette (evidence file, folios 42 to 45 and 1437 to 1446). 35 36 Cf. Judicial decision of the Federal Judge, dated September 14, 1992 (evidence file, folio 49). 37 Cf. Note from the Public Defender, dated September 14, 1992 (evidence file, folio 49). 38 Cf. Decision of the Federal Judge, dated September 28, 1992 (evidence file, folio 51). 39 Cf. Note from the Public Defender, dated October 20, 1992 (evidence file, folio 54). 40 Cf. Decision of Federal Judge No. 2 of Mendoza, dated November 6, 1992 (evidence file, folio 56). 41 Cf. Decision of the Federal Judge, dated November 24, 1992 (evidence file, folio 58). 12