the production of the evidence.” 170 The presumed victims filed an appeal for reversal and a subsidiary appeal against this decision. 171 Following the reiteration of the appeal, on February 5, 2010, the judge decided “to annul the declared negligence,” because “the only evidence pending production in the complaint was the transcription of the audio [cassettes].” 172 On March 23, 2010, the presumed victims again repeated that they had been requesting the transcription of the cassettes for more than 10 years, without this having been done. 173 On November 29, 2010, “the [Departmental] Expertise Advisory Services [reported that] it did not have an expert with expertise in the transcription of [cassettes]”; 174 accordingly, Messrs. Mémoli asked that an expert translator be appointed to prepare the transcript. 175 On May 27, 2011, an expert was appointed to prepare the transcript. However, in May 2012, the judge asked another court to forward “the technical elements to listen to [cassettes], offered as evidence.” 176 The plaintiff then asked that the expert be assigned to prepare the transcript of the cassettes. 177 102. In parallel, the presumed victims made specific requests to locate and forward some of the cassettes that the court that was hearing the case had not yet received from other courts which, at some time, had been responsible for the proceeding or for some procedure within it (supra para. 99). In particular, in April 2011, the presumed victims asked that the request be reiterated to forward the cassettes to the court and recalled that, in addition to the seven cassettes that had already been sent by a judge who had been hearing the case, there were still another 12 or more cassettes. 178 That month, the court forwarded some notes dated February 2011 indicating that the cassettes requested were not in its secretariat. 179 Consequently, in April 2011, the presumed victims asked, inter alia, that the complaint be archived, or the annulment of all the proceedings to date declared, because evidence fundamental for their defense had been mislaid. 180 On April 27, 2012, the presumed victims reiterated that a request for annulment was pending owing to the loss of evidence. 181 The Court has no information on the result of this appeal for a declaration of nullity, and does not know whether, at some time after April 2012 and before the delivery of this Judgment, the cassettes, which were the only pending evidence, were found and transcribed. 170 Decision of September 11, 2009 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2664); brief of September 25, 2009 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2665), and decision of October 30, 2009 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2684). 171 Cf. Brief of November 9, 2009 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folios 2685 and 2686); decision of November 18, 2009 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2687), and decision of November 27, 2009 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2691). 172 Decision of February 5, 2010 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2707). 173 Cf. Brief of March 23, 2010 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2725). 174 Decision of November 29, 2010 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, annex 2, folio 1659). 175 Cf. Brief of February 28, 2011 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2759). 176 Note of April 27, 2012 (merits file, annex G, folio 442), and note of May 27, 2011 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, annex 2, folio 1680). 177 Cf. Brief of May 29, 2012 (merits file, annex G, folio 443). 178 Cf. Brief of April 8, 2011 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, annex 2, folio 1669). 179 Cf. Notes of February 11, 2011 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, annex 2, folio 1673). 180 Cf. Brief of March 1, 2011 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, annex 2, folios 1675 and 1676). 181 Cf. Brief of April 27, 2012 (merits file, annex G, folio 434). 41