of defamation because [the phrase “suspicion did not fall on the possible offenders, but on the victims or those who denounced them”] denigrates the reputation of the complainants,” so that “Pablo Mémoli, author of this publication, should also respond for the offense of defamation.” 107 79. The court also determined that certain statements 108 made by Pablo Mémoli during the radio program of May 4, 1990, constituted the offense of defamation (supra para. 75.4). 109 The first instance court considered that: It is evident that [the statements of Pablo Mémoli,] where he accuses [the complainants of] acting with subterfuges (tretas) and deceit (manganetas), may be considered defamatory, because the obvious intention is to discredit the complainants in their actions as members of the Italian Association, at the very least, attributing them with dishonorable conduct. Moreover, if we abide by the grammatical meaning of the word subterfuge (treta) which signifies: ‘trick, ruse, artifice …’ and ‘deceit’ (manganeta) ‘trickery, subterfuge, etc…,’ we have proof of the offense of defamation. [He also considered that] paragraphs [in which] the complainants are classified as corrupt, a word […] used repeatedly in the said paragraphs and addressed at the three members of the Management Committee, must be considered to have a discrediting content, because it affects their reputation,” which constitutes the offense of defamation. 110 80. Also, both Carlos and Pablo Mémoli were convicted of the offense of defamation owing to certain statements made during the radio program of May 10, 1990 111 (supra paras. 75.5 and 76.1). The court indicated that, based on the said statements, “they [had] attributed malicious conduct to the complainants”; they had “harmed the honor of [the complainants] 107 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 185). Despite having requested it (supra para. 8 and note 7), the Court does not have the complete text of this article. 108 The first instance court examined nine parts of the broadcast by Pablo Mémoli and considered that five of them “did not constitute, in [its] understanding, defamation, because [they were] opinions on the matter, which could not be considered denigrating.” Regarding the fifth of these statements, the judge considered that “by mentioning that it was a crude deception, it should be taken into account that, at the time of the broadcast, there had been no judicial decision on the issue,” and that, therefore, “what was the basis for a criminal complaint that was under investigation, c[ould not be considered defamatory.” 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 192 and 193). 109 During this program, Carlos Mémoli said: “In this case we have no explanations. Thus, this Management Committee – which is not the Management Committee; we accuse Messrs. Romanello, Guarracino, and Piriz who is the treasurer, of all these arbitrary, authoritarian manoeuvers,; they don’t provide any explanations, they do whatever they want. Many things surprise us; the complaint has been filed before the judge; yesterday, we went to the court and we were very surprised, extremely surprised; we are acting honestly and in good faith and with the truth, which is the only thing that we want to find, and these individuals are acting with lies, with subterfuges and deceit, which obviously we are discovering and, with our lack of experience, we have to combat them. Two newspapers have printed serious accusations, but no one has offered any explanations, and just yesterday, May 3, a communiqué appears stating that: The Management Committee of the Asociación Italiana de Socorros Mutuos, Cultural y Recreativa, as a result of the false accusations that are public knowledge, invites the members of the association, owners of the right to the burial niches in the Vault, to a meeting to be held in the offices of the Rotary Club of this town on Saturday, May 5, that is, tomorrow, at 10 a.m., in order to clarify any doubts and confusion that may exist with regard to the said burial niches, all caused by unknown intentions of those who publish unfounded falsehoods. I invited those who signed this […] and, to date, we have had no response in this regard, apart from the fact that this is public knowledge.” Transcript of the intervention of Pablo Mémoli in the program broadcast by Radio Vall on May 4, 1990, included in the case file of the criminal proceeding (file of annexes to the State’s final written arguments, annex III, folio 3916). 110 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 193 and 194). 111 As in the case of another radio program, the first instance court cited parts of the program and considered that nine of the 13 parts identified by the complainants as defamatory were “mere comments or opinions on a certain topic” and did not have a defamatory content. Cf. 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 197 to 199). 31