2001, notice was served of the complaint and its expansion. 154 On March 29, 2001, the presumed victims answered the expansion of the complaint and reiterated the objections filed concerning res judicata and prescription. 155 On May 18, 2001, the judge considered that “the objections of prescription and res judicata [had been] answered in the proper time and form” and delayed dealing with the alleged prescription “until delivering the final judgment” because it was not “evident”; he also ordered that evidence be received on the objection of res judicata. 156 The presumed victims filed an appeal for reversal and a subsidiary appeal (for financial relief) against this decision. 157 97. In September 2001, the presumed victims reached an out of court agreement with two of the plaintiffs (Antonio Guarracino and Humberto Romanello), and therefore, as of that date, the civil proceeding only referred to the complaints of one plaintiff (the treasurer Juan Bernardo Piriz). In this regard, Messrs. Mémoli agreed to pay the two plaintiffs three thousand pesos, “without this signifying any recognition of rights of the plaintiffs,” while the two plaintiffs undertook to pay the costs of the proceedings to Messrs. Mémoli. Based on this agreement, on October 18, 2001, Messrs. Mémoli waived the objection of res judicata and asked that the complaint be rejected in limine. Nevertheless, the judge decided that the brief “was not supported by any procedural norm that would justify its admissibility.” 158 98. Following the out of court settlement, Messrs. Mémoli insisted on the objection of prescription filed previously (supra para. 96). Thus, between December 2001 and February 2002, they repeated an appeal filed against the decision to deal with the objection of prescription in the judgment on the merits, which had not been decided (supra para. 96), 159 and various remedies were filed in this regard. 160 On February 26, 2002, the judge revoked the decision of May 18, 2001 (supra para. 96), and decided “[t]o defer the objections of prescription and res judicata to the time when the judgments were handed down,” because the former “c[ould] not be decided merely by law” and the latter was “directly linked to the arguments […] on merits.” 161 The presumed victims requested the annulment of this interlocutory judgment and asked that the subsidiary appeal they had filed be admitted. 162 The judge granted the appeal and, on March 19, 2002, ordered that the file be referred to the 154 At first, the judge only notified the expansion of the complaint. Subsequently, Messrs. Mémoli indicated that it was necessary to notify the original complaint, and this was done on March 27, 2001. Cf. Decision of December 14, 2000 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folios 1992 to 1994), Decision of March 2001 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2000), Brief of March 22, 2001 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2008) and decision of March 27, 2001 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2009). 155 Cf. Brief of March 29, 2001 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folios 2028 to 2031). 156 On May 23, 2001, it was placed on record that, on May 17, 2001, a brief had been received from the plaintiffs in which they responded to the preliminary objection concerning res judicata that had not been added to the case file, and the judge decided to reiterate his decision of May 18. Cf. Decision of May 18, 2001 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2056), and decision of May 23, 2001 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2068). 157 Cf. Brief of May 23, 2001 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folios 2069 and 2070), and brief of May 28, 2001 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2072). 158 Out of court settlement of September 11, 2001 (file of annexes to the Merits Report, annex 24, folios 307 to 308); brief of October 18, 2001 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2112), and decision of October 18, 2001 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2113). 159 Cf. Brief of December 4, 2001 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2124); decision of December 20, 2001 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folios 2137 and 2138), and brief of December 21, 2001 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2139). 160 Cf. Brief of February 8, 2002 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folios 2141 and 2142), and brief entitled “report on another error” (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2144). 161 Interlocutory decision of February 26, 2002 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folios 2145 to 2147). 162 Cf. Brief of March 4, 2002 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folios 2148 and 2149). 39