Rivarola complied with most of the formal requirements of the investigation. However, it is evident that a series of decisive elements that could have shed light on the assassination were not taken into account. Evidence that the order to carry out the crime had come from within the military power structure paralyzed the enquiry, bringing it to a standstill.2 18. The petitioners allege that the judgment at first instance was reversed on November 19, 1996 by the Sixth Court of the National Chamber of Appeals for Criminal and Correctional Matters, which acquitted Eduardo Kimel with the argument that the statements in dispute were value judgments that could not be considered tantamount to the false imputation of a publicly actionable crime made against a given person. The Chamber of Appeals reached the conclusion that Mr. Kimel exercised his legitimate right to propagate information in a non-abusive manner without the intention of injuring the honor of Dr. Rivarola; and it drew attention to the fact that "persons in public office are open to the criticism of the press on the performance of their functions." 19. According to the petitioners, on December 22, 1998, the Supreme Court of Argentina, upholding an extraordinary appeal for review filed by the complainant, 3 reversed the acquittal ruling issued by the Chamber of Appeals and ordered that the proceeding be returned to first instance for a new ruling to be passed in keeping with its judgment. In particular, the Supreme Court considered that, "the arguments put forward by the judges who signed the acquittal determining that the characterization of defamation had not been shown are unfounded [...] because only from an incomplete and disjointed reading of the incriminating text could it be said -as the court a quo does- that the criminal accusation is not addressed to the complainant.” 20. The petitioners affirm that the Chamber of Appeals delivered a new judgment on March 17, 1999, which upheld the suspended sentence of one year in prison and the damages of 20,000 pesos imposed on Eduardo Kimel, and amended the legal classification of the act charged to the crime of defamation in accordance with Article 109 of the Criminal Code.4 21. The petition states that the alleged victim filed an extraordinary appeal for review of the new judgment of the Chamber of Appeals, followed by a recurso de queja (appeal against improper refusal to allow an appeal), which was rejected in limine by the Supreme Court on September 14, 2000, with which the sentence became final. 22. The petitioners allege that the State has violated the right to freedom of expression contained in Article 13 of the Convention because the imposition of a prison sentence for the crime of defamation dissuades criticism of state officials and therefore impedes public access to important information about the performance of their authorities. In the opinion of the petitioners, the criminal punishment of a journalist has an intimidating effect that encourages self-censorship. 2 Eduardo Kimel, La Masacre de San Patricio, Ediciones LOHLÉ-LUMEN, 1995, p.125. 3 In accordance with Article 14 of Law 48, the extraordinary federal remedy is an appeal that can be presented before the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation once the proceedings before the provincial jurisdiction have been completed. 4 The rule in question provides that defamation or false imputation of a publicly actionable crime shall be punished with one to three years’ imprisonment.