petition 12.128, and to determine the way forward in the processing of that case and of the petition concerning the situation of Mr. Kimel. 14. On March 17, 2003 the State requested an extension of 30 days to present its reply to the last submission made by the petitioners, which it eventually transmitted on April 16, 2003, in the framework of the processing of petition 12.128 ("Verbitsky et al."). (On May 27, 2003 the petitioners informed the Commission that, based on the lack of progress in processing the law bill, the talks aimed at reaching a friendly settlement in connection with petition 12.128 had been suspended altogether). 15. By means of a communication of November 26, 2003 the Commission formally separated the petition concerning Mr. Kimel from the processing of petition 12.128 ("Verbitsky et al."), and informed the parties that it would continue to process the former petition as case number P720/2000. In that same communication, the Commission informed the parties that it was concluding the friendly settlement procedure in light of its lack of results, and granted them one month to present any additional observations on the admissibility both of petition 720/2000 and of petition 12.128. The petitioners replied, reiterating their request that the case be declared admissible. The Government, for its part, did not reply. III POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. Position of the petitioners 16. According to the complaint, in its ruling of September 25, 1995 the Eighth National Court of First Instance for Criminal and Correctional Matters in and for Buenos Aires found in Case 2564 of that court’s docket that the journalist Eduardo Gabriel Kimel was guilty of the crime of defamation in accordance with Article 110 of the Criminal Code and imposed on him a sentence of one year in prison (suspended) as well as 20,000 pesos in damages for defamation.1 17. According to the petition, the criminal proceeding against Kimel was initiated based on a criminal complaint brought on October 28, 1991 by Guillermo Federico Rivarola, whose name is mentioned in a publication authored by the alleged victim titled La Masacre de San Patricio. The book, published in 1989, tells of the murder of five clerics of the Palotine order in the District of Belgrano, Buenos Aires, killings that occurred on July 4, 1976 during the military dictatorship. The book criticizes the actions of the authorities entrusted with the investigation of the crimes, among them the then-judge Guillermo Federico Rivarola, in the following terms: Judge Rivarola carried out all the applicable procedures: he collected the police reports containing the preliminary information; he requested and was provided with the reports of the coroner and the ballistics expert. He summoned a sizeable number of people who were able to provide information to further the enquiry. However, an examination of the judicial records poses an initial question: Was there any real intention to turn up clues that might lead to the murderers? Under the dictatorship judges were normally acquiescent to, when not complicit in, the repression of the dictatorial regime. In the Palotines’ case, Judge 1 The norm in question provides: Anyone who injures another person’s honor or reputation shall be fined between 1,500 and 90,000 pesos or imprisoned from one month to one year.