further evidence was pending production and, on March 6, he ordered the parties to be served notice to submit their arguments on the evidence that had been produced within a period of six days, counted as of the fifth day after notice was served of said decision.129 82. On April 6, 2000, the attorney for the petitioner submitted his arguments on the merits of the evidence introduced in the proceedings.130 On April 11, 2000, the EMGE’s attorney submitted her arguments on the merits of the evidence introduced in the case, requesting that the case be dismissed.131 On April 18,132 and May 23, 2000,133 and on another occasion between July and September of the same year,134 the petitioner’s attorney submitted motions requesting the judge to issue the ruling. 83. In the trial court judgment, issued on November 7, 2000, the court ruled that the complaint was admissible, establishing that the injury inflicted upon Sebastian was the consequence of an unlawful attitude of carelessness or neglect on the part of the State, as the owner and the party responsible for the property because of the conditions of the land (i.e. abandoned, with the presence of hazardous elements, in a state of disrepair and without any enclosure or perimeter fencing). Additionally, the judgment establishes that this property was considered by the inhabitants of the area to be a public square and of public use, where children went to play on a regular basis. 84. In its judgment, the court concluded that the State, in principle, was responsible for having generated a hazardous situation by not properly fencing in the property in order to prevent free access thereto. Nonetheless, the court also found that the case involved some responsibility on the part of Sebastian, who by his own free will and aware of the risks that could ensue from playing in uninhabited sectors with unfamiliar and abandoned elements, had displayed conduct that had a causal effect on the injurious act. Based on this, the court ascribed 30% of the responsibility to Sebastian and 70% to the State. Finding merit to the complaint against the State, and consequently ordering the National State-General Staff of the Army to pay Sebastian the amount of 130,000 pesos plus interest (in proportion and in keeping with the guidelines provided in the judgment), and ordering the State to pay the court costs and legal fees, inasmuch as it had been substantially defeated and also taking into account the nature of the claim.135 85. This judgment was appealed by both parties; the EMGE appealed on September 15 and the petitioner on September 18, 2000.136 The appeals court judgment, issued on November 23, 129 Case proceedings file titled “Furlan Sebastian Claus v National State for Damages,” page 292. communication from the State received on October 15, 2008. Annex to 130 Case proceedings file titled “Furlan Sebastian Claus v National State for Damages,” pages 312-315 back. Annex to communication from the State received on October 15, 2008. 131 Case proceedings file titled “Furlan Sebastian Claus v National State for Damages,” page 316-318 back. Annex to communication from the State received on October 15, 2008. 132 Case proceedings file titled “Furlan Sebastian Claus v National State for Damages,” page 294. communication from the State received on October 15, 2008. 133 Case proceedings file titled “Furlan Sebastian Claus v National State for Damages,” page 305. communication from the State received on October 15, 2008. Annex to Annex to 134 See document titled “enforce the order. Judgment is issued,” undated. Case proceedings file titled “Furlan Sebastian Claus v National State for Damages,” page 319. Annex to communication from the State received on October 15, 2008. 135 Trial Court Judgment issued on September 7, 2000, National Court for Federal Civil and Commercial Matters, Chamber No. 18, Case File No. 3.519/1997, case proceeding records titled “Furlan Sebastian Claus v National State for Damages”, page 326 back. Annex to communication from the State received on October 15, 2008. 136 Case proceedings file titled “Furlan Sebastian Claus v National State for Damages,” pages 329 and 330. Annex to communication from the State received on October 15, 2008.