However, they did not make a specific request in this regard. The Court notes that the judgments in first and second instance in the criminal proceeding were delivered two and three years, respectively, after the proceedings were opened, and that the judgment was final in a total of approximately five years. 313 The information provided to the Court does not reveal an infringement of the guarantee of a reasonable time in the said criminal proceeding. Therefore, this Court finds it unnecessary to rule on the duration of the criminal proceeding. 185. Furthermore, in addition to the violations of freedom of expression argued based on the criminal proceeding (supra paras. 114 and 115), the Commission and the representatives argued that freedom of expression had been violated owing to the duration of the civil proceeding. In this regard, the Court recalls that, in this case, it has concluded that the criminal conviction against the presumed victims did not constitute a violation of freedom of expression (supra para. 149), so that the Court is not required to analyze the arguments concerning a presumed violation of freedom of expression owing to the delay in the civil proceeding. B. Other violations alleged by the representatives in relation to the judicial proceedings B.1) Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 186. In its Merits Report, the Commission concluded that the presumed victims had not proved the violation of Article 8 of the Convention in relation to the alleged irregularities in either the criminal proceeding or the civil proceeding. 187. The representatives alleged that there had been a series of irregularities presumably committed in the criminal proceeding and in the civil proceeding against the presumed victims. Regarding the criminal proceeding, they stated that “the Criminal Chamber created and/or established a new hearing so that the complainant could present his arguments a second time,” in violation of article 423 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that, during the said hearing, “a rebuttal was allowed, but no reply to the rebuttal,” so that “[t]here was no possibility of exercising the right of defense.” 314 They also indicated that they had to pay “2000 dollars at the exchange rate at the time, to the order of the Court on pain of execution,” after filing a remedy of complaint before the National Court, which was declared inadmissible. In this regard, they argued that “the system of justice should be free and unrestricted for any individual, whether or not he has the means.” In brief, they indicated that these irregularities “reveal the arbitrariness and partiality of the decision that only benefited the complainants.” Regarding the civil proceeding, they argued that: the civil case had prescribed when it was initiated; the judge who heard the case misplaced the cassettes, which were “the only evidence that was requested over the years,” and the provisions of article 207 of the Civil and Commercial Code regarding the expiry of the precautionary measures were not complied with or the time frame for initiating the civil proceeding. In addition, the representatives indicated that, during this proceeding, Article 25 of the Convention was violated because three “civil judges were sanctioned by the Court Attorney 313 In particular, the first instance judgment was delivered in approximately two years and seven months; and the judgment in second instance, one year after the first decision. Subsequently, the Chamber took four months to admit an appeal for declaration of nullity and non-applicability, converted into an appeal on unconstitutionality before the Supreme Court of Justice of the province of Buenos Aires, which rejected it in approximately eight months. The special federal appeal that was filed was rejected one month later, and one year later a remedy of complaint and subsidiary appeal was decided (supra paras. 74, 75, 86, 89 and 90). 314 In this regard, they indicated that Carlos Mémoli’s lawyer “was notified the previous day and attended, but was not allowed to speak,” while “Pablo Mémoli, who was defending himself, was not given the opportunity to be [present].” 70