the Management Committee, who included the complainants, were referred to as “accessories to the presumed offense of fraud,” and that “in addition [to the complainants], the other members of the Management Committee would be prosecuted,” constituted defamation, inasmuch as “the complainants were being defamed by conjectures.” In addition, the said judge considered that the statements made by Pablo Mémoli in the said article about the Association’s annual accounts and the possible lack of truth of the invoices, was “a libelous assessment.” In the opinion of this judge: The indication of a categorical result to a criminal proceeding that has recently started […] goes beyond an analysis of the news or the criticism of a mandate, and enters the realm of the characterization of conducts, which they had even been warned to abstain from by ‘letter document’ [… and] it was done with full knowledge of the intention with which it was written, and that the opinions were detrimental and with the intention to reproduce them. […] [Regarding Mr. Mémoli’s statement about the truth of the Association’s balance sheets, he considered] that this is not a criticism, [… nevertheless,] the intention to question the actions of [Messrs. Romanello and Piriz], ironically, is evident from the article. […] There is animus injuriandi [because] there was understanding and the intention to say what was said and the way in which it was expressed, which, at the very least, was aimed at trying to discredit the persons named before the Association. And, fundamentally because it is possible to give an opinion without going to these extremes. 104 78. The court also considered defamatory the content of the article “El dolo en el caso de los nichos” 105 of April 28, 1990 (supra para. 75.2), because “not only are dishonorable comments made, but also fraudulent conduct [was] attributed in the absence of a judicial ruling, even satirizing the issue and not leaving any doubts in the air about certain acts, but affirming them, producing disrepute, […] knowing what [was] said and done.” 106 In addition, the court examined a column published under the pseudonym “Chusman” (supra para. 75.3), published in the same issue, and determined that it was “offensive, constituting the offense not explaining the issue to the members who feel defrauded. All of them should respond before the courts. […] The friends of these men have already been invited to attend the Assembly meeting. […] The issue of the burial niches is not included on the agenda and, therefore, will not be discussed. Elections will be held for a new President to replace Guarracino, and this will be his relative Guido Salese, Guarracino will be Secretary, and Romanello will continue to be Vice President. The Treasurer, Piriz, whose term ends, will be re-elected. In other words, nothing will change. The treasurer is accused of having violated the Statute by never producing accounts […] over the last year, and some sources indicate that he has not done so in the last five years. Piriz always reads out the financial statement during the regular General Assembly without any type of control. In other words, he reads out whatever he wants. […] Today, they have hired an accountant to produce the annual accounts. This professional began to work around April 9 on the invoices and documentation presented by Romanello and Piriz, which, logically, coincides perfectly to produce a healthy balance sheet. The difference stems from the fact that, logically, the accountant will not investigate the truth of these invoices and, in good faith, will work on them. LA LIBERTAD will investigate.” Article entitled “Maniobras de una Comisión Directiva,” published in the newspaper La Libertad on April 28, 1990, included in the file of the criminal proceedings against Carlos and Pablo Mémoli for libel and defamation (file of annexes to the State’s final written arguments, annex III, folio 3797). 104 Judgment of Court No. 7 for Criminal and Correctional Affairs of the Judicial Department of Mercedes of December 29, 1994, case No. 71,114 (file of annexes to the Merits Report, annex 3, folios 179, 180 and 182). 105 This article states: “We believe that an offense leading to a public action has been committed; not only should the press intervene, but also any citizen who becomes aware of a presumed fraud. No one can hide these offenses without becoming an accessory. […] The six lawyers consulted by this newspaper left no doubt about this deception. […] In 1985, sales contracts were drawn up; in 1987, some of the ‘purchasers’ were made to sign a commodate contract and, in 1988, sales contracts were again issued to those who acquired burial niches in an expansion carried out. We believe that throughout all this time, and based on this signed documentary evidence, [the complainants] cannot argue that they acted in good faith in this regard, because both they and the notary who advised them could have rectified any initial theoretical error. For five years they have done nothing; the procedures have been repeated and, to date, they have not explained the matter to anyone. This is why we believe that they acted with wilful intent (aware of what they were doing). […] Therefore, we believe that wilful intent existed, unless [the complainants] show that they came from another planet, sold burial niches for five years, spoke to no one, and left for another galaxy.” Article entitled “El dolo en el caso de los nichos,” published in La Libertad on April 28, 1990 (file of annexes to the final written arguments of the representatives, folio 3718). 106 Judgment of Court No. 7 for Criminal and Correctional Affairs of the Judicial Department of Mercedes of December 29, 1994, case No. 71,114 (file of annexes to the Merits Report, annex 3, folio 184). 30