20 On December 21, 1994, Mr. Cantos waived the evidence he had not yet introduced and asked that a judgment be delivered in the case.79 p. On May 12 and 19, 1995, the State’s Attorney for the Province and the Federal State, respectively, presented arguments on the merits of the body of evidence compiled80 and asked that the Supreme Court dismiss the complaint in all its parts. On June 2, 1995, Mr. Cantos requested a conciliation hearing.81 On August 17, 1995, after two postponements,82 the Supreme Court closed the evidentiary phase prior to issuing its decision.83 On September 3, 1996, the Supreme Court handed down its final ruling wherein it found that the respondent province could not be sued for the agreement signed in 1982 and invoked the statute of limitations given the extra-contractual nature of the obligation alleged.84 Concerning attorneys’ and experts’ fees q. Under Argentine law, attorneys’ fees are a pre-set percentage of the amount of relief being claimed.85 In this specific case, the attorneys’ fees came to a total of 6,454,185.00 pesos (six million four hundred fifty-four thousand one hundred eightyfive pesos, the equivalent of as many United States dollars). r. On October 4, 1994, the Supreme Court issued its decision wherein it set the fees of the attorneys for the parties (Francisco Alberto Cavallotti, Walter Omar Peralta Rondano, Santiago Bargalló Beade, Jorge Alberto Jáuregui, Raul Diego Huidobro, Horacio Ángel Lamas and Claudia Graciela Reston) and of the only two court-appointed experts (Osvaldo C. Marum and Juan Bautista Viegas) for their work on the main case and on a number of motions, including those that concerned evidence and authorization to litigate without paying fees in advance of litigation.86 79 Supreme Court Case File C-1099, Volume VIII, f. 1468. 80 Supreme Court Case File C-1099, Volume XII, fs. 2236 to 2243 reverse side, 2253 to 2268. 81 Supreme Court Case File C-1099, Volume XII, f. 2272. 82 The first hearing had been set for June 15, 1995. That same day, however, the parties requested that a new date be set for the hearing. The hearing was rescheduled for July 20, 1995. Supreme Court Case File C-1099, Volume XII, f. 2280. With regard to that hearing, the court-appointed experts Osvaldo Cristóbal Marum and Juan Bautista Viegas were opposed to any settlement until any outstanding honoraria were paid, at 2274 Volume XII. Later, on July 13, 1995, José Maria Cantos petitioned the court to reschedule the hearing set for July 20, 1995, and based his request on the fact that the Province of Santiago del Estero had appointed a new State’s Attorney who had not yet taken over his post and therefore had not had enough time to familiarize himself with the case, Supreme Court Case File C-1099, Volume XII, f. 2281. 83 Supreme Court Case File C-1099, Volume XII, f. 2287. Supreme Court Case File C-1099, Volume XII, fs. 2288 to 2297; and (Argentine) Supreme Court Ruling of September 3, 1996 in the case "Cantos, José María v/ Santiago del Estero, Province of and/Argentine State for payment of amounts owed,” Case C-1099, appendix 69 of the complaint. 84 85 Article 7 of Law No. 21,893. 86 Testimony of María Dolores Spaini de Retondo before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, June 17, 2002; Supreme Court Case File C-1099 Volume IV, f. 642 et seq.; Law No. 21,839 of July 20, 1978; October 4, 1994 Supreme Court decision provisionally setting the fees for the attorneys and experts who participated in Case C-1099; and Supreme Court decision of August 29, 1995, agreeing to precautionary measures to encumber Radiodifusora de Santiago del Estero S.A., appendix 38 of the complaint.