33. In connection with the allegation of the petitioners regarding the unexpected setting of a date for a hearing by the Second Chamber of the Criminal and Correctional Court of Mercedes Judicial Department, the State indicates that the court deemed an additional hearing necessary for balance in the defense of the parties. It indicates that at a first hearing, the defendants took the stand on two occasions, whereas the plaintiff only once, which was the reason for calling a second, complementary, hearing, for procedural balance in the criminal action and to hear arguments regarding the facts of the case. 34. The State states that both plaintiffs and defendants were notified of the hearing. It states that the attorney defending the alleged victims participated in the proceeding, so that the plaintiffs’ absence cannot be a source of violation of the right to due process.36 It alleges that both parties appealed the judgment of the court of first instance and that it was admissible to complement the first hearing, giving the plaintiff an opportunity to argue the points he had not alleged and were not part of his appeal, and those that the defendants and their attorneys had referred to at length at a first hearing convened by the court of second instance. 35. The State alleges that the alleged victims enjoyed all due process guarantees, at two judicial instances. It indicates that, after the appeal judgment, the alleged victims filed appeals erroneously at both the provincial and the federal levels. It states that the alleged victims pursued an extraordinary appeal [recurso extraordinario] before the Supreme Court of Justice of Buenos Aires Province, citing grounds pertaining to an appeal for inapplicability of law [recurso de inaplicabilidad de la ley], which was the reason for its denial by the high court. It states that the alleged victims filed an extraordinary federal appeal [recurso extraordinario federal] against this decision, which was also denied.37 It states that the defendants filed an appeal for reversal [recurso de revocatoria] against that decision, which was denied taking into account evidence that the resolution challenged was not susceptible to reversal. 36. Regarding the petitioner’s allegation that Mr. Carlos Mémoli was convicted because his attorney had used a particular word in an administrative file, the State asserts that this statement is inconsistent with the deliberations and decision of the courts that heard the case. It indicates that Mr. Carlos Mémoli was convicted for a variety of slanderous remarks made in different contexts and not merely for a word contained in an administrative file.38 37. The State alleges that the alleged victims made erroneous use of appellate procedural paths, so that domestic remedies were not properly exhausted. 39 It indicates that the petitioners’ complaint is limited to contesting the resolution of the action by Argentine courts. In that connection, it states that the Commission cannot review judgments of national courts acting within the scope of their competence and applying the due judicial guarantees.40 36 Ibid., pp. 9-10. 37 The Supreme Court of Justice of Buenos Aires Province gave the following grounds for denial: “…the lower court errors cited regarding the matter only reflect the appellant’s personal disagreement with the interpretation of the sentencing court, so that they are not appropriate to that end, bearing in mind that the objection of arbitrariness regarding resolutions of this type is especially restrictive.” 38 Additional submission of the State of March 13, 2003, pp.2-3. 39 Reply of the State to the petition of March 26, 2002, p. 12. 40 Ibid., p. 14.