possibility of, in the future, by mutual agreement, structuring the deal legally.” The Judge also indicated that “at present, no patrimonial damage had been caused,” and that “the implications of the new legal mechanism established for the relationship should be discussed in the administrative and/or civil jurisdiction.” Consequently, the criminal Judge decided to dismiss the case provisionally because “there was insufficient merit […] since the perpetration of the offense investigated had not been proved.” 90 This decision was appealed, but the appeal was rejected on June 13, 1990. 91 71. In parallel to this criminal proceedings, Carlos and Pablo Mémoli also filed a complaint before the National Mutual Action Institute (hereinafter “INAM”), requesting an investigation of the Italian Association and its Management Committee, for supposed accounting irregularities in the administration of funds, owing to the treasurer’s failure to submit balance sheets and reports; supposed irregularities in the appointment of the teacher for the Italian School; the supposed fraud committed in relation to the case of the burial niches, and supposed errors committed in the publication of the announcements to convene two Assemblies of the Italian Association. 92 On June 19, 1991, the Directors of INAM issued a decision in which it was decided “[t]o reject, in part, the complaint filed by Carlos Mémoli.” The INAM considered, inter alia, that the matter relating to the Italian School was “an internal matter of the association.” In addition, it concluded that “although an error had been made, [because monthly reports and quarterly statements had not been provided as required by the Association’s Statutes], no irregularity had been detected, and it had not been proved that any offense had been committed, so that they would [only] be required to comply strictly with the provisions in force regarding the administration of the Association’s funds.” Furthermore, it decided “[t]o require the entity to ratify the decisions” of the Special General Assembly of May 11, 1990, “because it was not in compliance with the deadline established for the publication of official announcements.” Lastly, it indicated that “the said Assembly should have approved the Regulations of the Association’s Vault and [of the] Italian language course, and these should then have been forwarded to this Institution.” 93 90 Decision of June 6, 1990, of the Criminal Judge of the province of Buenos Aires in case No. 73,679 (file of annexes to the Merits Report, annex 4, folios 219 and 220). 91 Cf. Report of the INAM Monitoring Department of May 13, 1991 (file of annexes to the State’s final written arguments, annex III, folio 3907). 92 Cf. Judgment of the Second Appellate Chamber for Criminal and Correctional Matters of the Judicial Department of Mercedes, Province of Buenos Aires of December 28, 1995, case No. 55,964 (file of annexes to the Merits Report, annex 2, folio 81), and judgment of Court No. 7 for Criminal and Correctional Matters of the Judicial Department of Mercedes of December 29, 1994, case No. 71,114 (file of annexes to the Merits Report, annex 3, folio 133). 93 In this decision, the INAM Board excluded the aspect of the complaint corresponding to the issue of the burial niches in the municipal cemetery, indicating that the criminal judge had ordered the provisional dismissal. Regarding the publication of official announcements, it indicated that “although it is true that the convocation was disseminated widely, the fact is that the legal provisions were not complied with.” Cf. Decision No. 509 of June 19, 1991, of the INAM Board (file of annexes to the State’s final written arguments, annex III, folios 3912 to 3914). “The Permanent Legal Service of [INAM] intervened,” in this decision, and reports were prepared by the Legal/Accounting Department (of March 1991) and the Monitoring Department (of April 1991), where it was recorded that neither the monthly reports nor the quarterly balance sheets “ordered by the Association’s statute, [had been produced, so that m]anagement is at fault in this regard”; however, the Association’s books show that “the administration is correct and no prejudices for the Association have been noted.” Also, these reports show that the Italian Association had not approved the Regulations for the services of the “Italian Vault” or for the Italian School, and “if they provide […] services that are offered by the mutual association, […] they should be regulated and approved by INAM.” Report of the INAM Monitoring Department of April 1991 (file of annexes to the State’s final written arguments, annex III, folio 3903). Also, Cf. Report of the INAM Legal Affairs Department of May 13, 1991 (file of annexes to the State’s final written arguments, annex III, folio 3908), and report of the INAM Legal/Accounting Department of March 20, 1991 (file of annexes to the State’s final written arguments, annex III, folios 3899 and 3900). 27