55 213. It can therefore be concluded that the argument brought by representatives De Vita and Cueto is inadmissible, and that in fact the National Chamber of Criminal Cassation responded to the grievance brought before it, explained the reasons why the argument as submitted did not apply to the case and, based on the complexity of the matter and the numerous judicial decisions and remedies filed, rejected the request for the statute of limitations because it foresaw no situation that could imply “moving the process back to an earlier stage and delaying the delivery of a final, unappealable judgment.” 201 This means that the National Chamber of Criminal Cassation did not bypass any rule or regulation that could have led to a more lenient sentence for the accused; it was instead a difference of opinion by the representatives and not an irregular or erroneous application of the law by the Chamber of Criminal Cassation. 214. For these reasons, the Court holds there was no violation of article 9 of the American Convention in the instant case. VIII-4 POLITICAL RIGHTS A. Arguments of the parties 215. Representatives De Vita and Cueto argued that the criminal process culminated in the “civic death” of the alleged victims and their family members due to disqualification from conducting business to which they were subjected even in the absence of a conviction. They also held that when they were condemned to full and permanent disqualification from holding public office, “it banished them from the civic life to which every person is entitled, denying them the right to nationality that all persons possess and prolonging the effects of the crime over time, with no possibility whatsoever of regaining the place every person holds in the heart of a society.” Accordingly, they claimed that “the sentence to full and permanent disqualification contravenes principles and freedoms,” is contrary to articles 1, 2 and 23 of the Convention “and should be set aside.” The Inter-American Commission made no reference to this alleged violation of the American Convention. 216. The State commented on the general order blocking the accused from selling or encumbering their property, stating that it was a precautionary measure established in article 319 of the Code of Military Justice for cases when the accused’s assets were unknown or insufficient, and in this case, the defendants subject to the measure could request that it be replaced with a sufficient personal or real bond. The measure did not produce “civic death,” as the representatives suggested, but instead was intended to safeguard the criminal process for the actual commission of the criminal offenses of fraud, forgery of a public document, and conspiracy, and was strictly reasonable, necessary and proportional. “Indeed, the general block on the sale or encumbrance of assets as ordered was fully justified in view of the fact that the alleged act being criminally investigated – and subsequently proven – was in fact fraudulent handling of public property for personal gain or that of third parties.” They added that the claims of not being able to lead a decent commercial life were ill-founded because the applicants received 50% of their monthly wage. “The inability to undertake commercial activities or take out commercial credit is a natural consequence of the precautionary measure because these are the very activities that could have been undertaken with public funds implicated in the crime of fraud.” 201 Grounds for the March 20, 1995 judgment by the National Chamber of Criminal Cassation, April 3, 1995 (evidence file, folios 2303).