requested certain information, explanations and helpful evidence from the parties and the Commission. 7 9. Helpful evidence. On February 26, 2013, the Secretariat of the Court, on the instructions of the President, requested the State and the representatives to submit certain documents and explanations as helpful evidence. 8 10. Final written arguments and observations. On March 10 and 11, 2013, the representatives, the State and the Commission, respectively, presented their final written arguments and observations. On that occasion, the State and the representatives presented some of the helpful documentation and explanations requested by the Court and its President (supra para. 8 and 9). On April 10 and 12, 2013, the representatives and the State, respectively, presented their observations on the documentation submitted. At that time, the representatives also made general observations on the final written arguments of the State. On April 11, 2013, the Commission indicated that it had no observations to make on this documentation. 11. Deliberation of this case. Following the submission of these final observations, the Court deliberated on this Judgment during its ninety-ninth and one hundredth regular session. III PRIOR CONSIDERATIONS A. Regarding the submission of the case to the Inter-American Court A.1) Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 7 In particular, the parties were asked to provide the following information and documentation: what is the legal regime applicable to precautionary measures such as those that were applied in this case (prohibition to dispose of and encumber property) in a civil action for damages? Copy of the Codes of Civil and Commercial Procedure and of Criminal Procedure in force at the time of the facts, that were applied in this case (either of the province of Buenos Aires or of the Nation), as well as any other relevant domestic legislation, and complete copy of all relevant articles, radio programs and documents, based on which the presumed victims were tried for the crime of defamation (injurias). 8 In particular, the parties were asked to submit the following: (1) regarding the criminal proceedings: a copy of the appeal for reversal presumably filed against the decision of September 10, 1996, of the Supreme Court of Justice of the province of Buenos Aires, declaring the special remedy of unconstitutionality inadmissible, as well as the presumed decision in this regard of September 23, 1996, together with the reasoning for this (presumably set out in folio 1043 of the criminal case file), and (2) regarding the civil action and the precautionary measure prohibiting the sale or encumbrance of property: (a) explain whether the different appeals filed during the civil action had the effect of suspending it and, if so, which of them, as well as provide the corresponding supporting documentation; (b) explain whether there is a separate case file corresponding to the precautionary measure granted in this case in the context of the civil action and, if so, provide a complete and updated copy. If there is no separate case file, the State was asked to forward the following explanations or documents: (b.1) report on the results of the appeal filed by the presumed victims on November 15, 2001, against the general injunction against the sale or encumbrance of property, as well as the corresponding request of February 8, 2002, for the respective higher court to decide this appeal. If appropriate, provide a copy of the corresponding judicial decision, and (b.2) provide information on the results of the request of December 6, 2001, by which the presumed victims requested a counter-cautionary measure against the complainant’s representative in the civil action for damages against them or, if applicable, provide a copy of the corresponding judicial decision, and (c) describe and provide details, in chronological order and disaggregated, of the different stages, appeals, petitions, and decisions in relation to the precautionary measure, in both the criminal proceeding and the civil action. They were also asked to provide the respective supporting documentation or, if appropriate, indicate the evidence to which it corresponded in the attachments that had already been submitted to the Court. 7