16 Court admitted the new fact35 relative to the background and details of the searches conducted in 1972. g. On February 12, 1987, Mr. Cantos petitioned the Supreme Court to begin the evidentiary phase.36 On March 2, 1987, the Supreme Court gave the State and the Province a period of 40 days to tender their evidence.37 On May 28, 1987, Mr. Cantos asked that any evidence that the State and the Province might introduce be disallowed inasmuch as the time period that the Court had established for them to tender evidence had expired.38 The next day, the Supreme Court advised Mr. Cantos that the deadline for tendering evidence had been suspended because of the new fact that the Court had admitted39 (supra 43.f). In June 1987, the parties tendered their evidence to refute the opposing side’s arguments.40 Between October 1987 and October 1990, arguments centered on the various pieces of evidence tendered by the parties,41 chief among them the expert evidence.42 On November 9, 1989, the Supreme Court received the findings of the expert analysis.43 From then until October 1990, Mr. Cantos filed motions to have the expert study on the validity of the agreement thrown out44 and asked to produce that evidence (supra 43.b). The Supreme Court denied his request.45 35 Supreme Court Case File C-1099, Volume II, f. 250 et seq., 255 et seq. 36 Supreme Court Case File C-1099, Volume II, f. 229. 37 Supreme Court Case File C-1099, Volume II, fs. 234 and 234 reverse side. 38 Supreme Court Case File C-1099, Volume II, f. 263. 39 Supreme Court Case File C-1099, Volume II, f. 264. 40 Supreme Court Case File C-1099, Volume IV, f. 692 et seq., 695, 697, Volume IX, fs. 1591 and 1592 reverse side, and Volume IX, fs. 1594 to 1598. 41 Supreme Court Case File C-1099, Volume XII, f. 2189 reverse side, 2190 reverse side, 2196 and 2193; Written communication of October 21, 1987, requesting that the administrative-law claims be forwarded to the Supreme Court, appendix 24 of the complaint; Response to the communication, sent through the Secretary General of the Office of the Governor of the Province of Santiago del Estero, Luis María Peña, dated November 9, 1987, appendix 25 of the complaint; Report of the Banco de la Provincia de Santiago del Estero, dated November 17, 1987, in response to a request from the Supreme Court, appendix 26 of the complaint; Memorandum from the Secretary of the Office of the Superintendent of the Santiago del Estero Superior Court, dated November 18, 1987, appendix 27 of the complaint; Testimony given before the Santiago del Estero Federal Court (March/May 1988) by order of the Supreme Court in Case File C-1099, appendix 28 of the complaint; Testimony given by Carim Nassif Neme before the Supreme Court on September 21, 1987, in Case C-1099, appendix 28 a) of the complaint; Written communication dated October 21, 1987, sent to the Santiago del Estero Provincial Police and its reply in Supreme Court Case C-1099, appendix 28 b) of the complaint; and December 7, 1988: copies of the records made by the Criminal and Correctional Examining Judge, 3rd Rotation, Province of Santiago del Estero, Dr. Roberto Osvaldo Encalada and by the Court’s Secretary, Gloria Cárdenas, documenting the search for a Case File titled: "Complaint brought by Dr. Carim Nassif Neme v/ Luis María Juan José Peña for the alleged crime of abuse of authority and violation of the duties of public office” and also documenting the fact that the case file in question could not be located, appendix 30 of the complaint; and 1986/1989, Prosecutor Dr. David Beltrán files a complaint against J. M. Cantos for falsification of a public document, before the Santiago del Estero Criminal and Correctional Examining Court, 2nd Rotation. On July 10, 1989, Mr. Cantos was acquitted in case No. 1757, Judge M. A. Zurita de González. -1982 Agreement-, appendix 31 of the complaint. 42 Supreme Court Case File C-1099, Volume IV, fs. 708, 740 et seq., 753, 756, 788, 1303, Volume VIII, fs. 1445, 1446, 1447, 1448, 1449, 1450 and 1452 Volume VIII, f. 1460, Volume XI, f. 2089 et seq., 2030, 2092, 2095, 2097 et seq., 2108, 2108 reverse side, 2122. 43 Supreme Court Case File C-1099, Volume XI, f.. 2177. 44 Supreme Court Case File C-1099, Volume VIII, f. 1452.