18 89 [the petitioners], caused significant delays in the trying of the case,” and in 2009 Judge for Civil Matters 90 Oscar Hector Mendez found the defendant in the civil case “negligent in producing evidence.” On the other hand, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Province of Buenos Aires imposed a disciplinary sanction 91 on two of the judges involved in the case, on the grounds of “significant delays” therein. The records in the case file show, therefore, that even though the long delay in disposing of the case is partly attributable to the pleadings of the petitioners, the conduct of the judicial authorities has also contributed to this situation. 71. The fact that the civil case has remained at the trial level for more than 13 years after it was first brought must be considered in light of the general injunction issued against the assets of the petitioners. Unquestionably, the almost uninterrupted application of said injunction over more than 15 years (two years as a result the injunction issued in the criminal proceeding, and 13 years of injunctive effect stemming from the civil proceeding which is still ongoing) represents a severe interference with the juridical situation of Carlos and Pablo Memoli. Moreover, based on assertions of the petitioners, which have not been disputed by the State, as a consequence of this injunction, they have been totally 92 precluded from purchasing and selling assets or from exercising other related rights. In view of the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court on the effect of the passage of time on the juridical situation of persons, the IACHR finds that this substantive and ongoing infringement should have given rise to particular diligence on the part of judicial officials, in order to complete the case as soon as possible. Nonetheless, the civil proceeding has dragged on for more than 13 years, a time period that is not reasonable in light of the circumstances set forth above. The Commission finds, therefore, that the State has violated Article 8.1 of the Convention in relation to Article 1.1, because it violated the principle of reasonable time in the civil case against Carlos and Pablo Memoli. 72. With regard to the civil case brought on the basis of the statements made by Carlos and Pablo Memoli, the Commission recalls that its Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression 93 recognizes that civil sanctions can be a valid tool for protecting individuals’ reputations. However, the Inter-American Court has established that civil proceedings in the area of freedom of expression should be strictly proportionate so as not to have a chilling effect on speech. This rule is particularly important in matters relating to issues of public interest, since “the fear of civil sanction […]any way it is viewed can be as or more intimidating or chilling for the exercise of the freedom of expression than a criminal sanction can be, inasmuch as it has the potential to endanger personal and family life.”94 At the same time, the 89 Annex 25. Judgment issued on March 12, 2008, Supreme Court of the Province of Buenos Aires, Case File 3001535/07, pg. 2. Annexes to the communication of the petitioners April 25, 2008 (received on May 6, 2008). 90 Annex 31. Order issued on October 30, 2009, Judge for Civil and Commercial Matters Oscar Hector Mendez, Case File.82341 case titled “Romanello Humberto et al Vs. Memoli Carlos et al in re damages.” Annex to the communication of the petitioners January 14, 2010 (Received on February 1, 2010). 91 Cfr. Annex 25. Judgment issued on March 12, 2008, Supreme Court of the Province of Buenos Aires, pgs. 5-6. 92 The petitioners indicate, for example, that they cannot take part in the awarding of licenses to provide audiovisual communications services, a business in which they have had an interest for many years. The Commission notes with regard to this issue that Article 24 of Audiovisual Communication Services Law 26.522, enacted on October 10, 2009 establishes that: Natural persons, as radiobroadcast licenses holders, natural persons as partners of for-profit corporate entities, at the time of entering the process of bidding/awarding of licenses, must meet the following requirements, and continue to meet them while the license is valid: […] f) not be incapacitated or disqualified, civilly or criminally, from engaging in or doing business, nor have been convicted of an offense with intentional deceit or malice from either a public or private action. 93 Cfr. IACHR, Declaration of Principles on http://www.cidh.oas.org/relatoria/showarticle.asp?artID=26&lID=2. Freedom of Expression, Principle 10, available at: 94 IA Ct. of HR, Case of Tristan Donoso Vs. Panama. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment January 27, 2009. Series C No. 193, par. 129, available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_193_esp.pdf.