3 Cantos for the crimes of fraud, embezzlement and forgery. dismissed. All the cases were Since the Province of Santiago del Estero did not comply with its agreement with Mr. Cantos on July 15, 1982, once the time limit had expired, Mr. Cantos filed a petition against the province and against the State of Argentina before the Supreme Court of Justice, on July 4, 1986. The amount claimed was 130,245,739.30 pesos (one hundred and thirty million two hundred and forty-five thousand seven hundred and thirty-nine pesos and thirty cents) under Act 18,188. The amount was calculated by updating the amount claimed from May 23, 1974, to December 31, 1984, according to the value of the United States dollar, with a daily interest rate of one per cent. On September 3, 1996, the Supreme Court of Justice delivered judgment rejecting the petition and requiring Mr. Cantos to pay the costs of the proceeding. These costs amounted to approximately US$ 140,000,000.00 (one hundred and forty million United States dollars). III PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COMMISSION 3. On May 29, 1996 the Commission received a complaint for alleged violation of the rights of José María Cantos embodied in Articles 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 11 (Right to Privacy), 17 (Rights of the Family), 21 (Right to Property), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Judicial Protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” or “the American Convention”). Violation of the obligation contained in Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) of the Convention was also cited, as well as non-compliance with several articles of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (hereinafter “the Declaration”). The complaint was submitted by the alleged victim, José María Cantos, his legal advisers, Germán J. Bidart Campos, Susana Albanese and Emilio Weinschelbaum, and by the Center for Justice and International Law (hereinafter “CEJIL”). On June 13, 1996, the Commission sent the State the pertinent parts of the complaint and requested its answer thereto. 4. Between July and October 1996, the original petitioner expanded the complaint and the corresponding information was forwarded to the State. 5. Argentina requested several extensions which the Commission authorized. Finally, the State replied on December 23, 1996, requesting that the complaint be declared inadmissible. The following day, the Argentine request was communicated to the petitioners, who forwarded their answer on January 16, 1997. This answer was then transmitted to Argentina on January 22, 1997. 6. On March 4, 1997, a hearing was held during which the parties presented the facts and the applicable law. The following March 6, Mr. Cantos submitted additional information from which it emerged that he had been subject to new and disproportionate regulations regarding fees in the domestic sphere; he therefore requested the adoption of precautionary measures. Consequently, on March 11, 1997, the Commission requested the State to adopt measures aimed at suspending the attachment of the property of Mr. Cantos.