B.1) First Instance decision 75. On December 29, 1994, Court No. 7 for Criminal and Correctional Matters of the Judicial Department of Mercedes delivered the judgment in first instance. In this decision, the Court established that Pablo Mémoli had committed the offense of defamation owing to some phrases included in: (1) an article entitled “Maniobras de una Comisión Directiva,” [A Management Committee’s intrigues] published on April 28, 1990, where Pablo Mémoli referred to the upcoming regular Assembly of the Italian Association and indicated that the members of the Management Committee were allegedly accessories to the offense of fraud, as well as mentioning what he considered irregularities in the accounting committed by the Association’s treasurer; (2) an editorial article entitled “El dolo en el caso de los nichos,” [Fraud in the case of the burial niches], published on April 28, 1990, in La Libertad, where presumably Pablo Mémoli “seeks to prove that the complainants acted with the intention to cause harm, because they knew or should have known that it was not possible to sell the burial niches”; (3) a column published under the pseudonym “Chusman” in La Libertad of April 28, 1990, mocking the facts relating to the case of the burial niches; (4) an intervention in a program broadcast by Radio Vall on May 4, 1990, where Pablo Mémoli referred to the supposed arbitrary administration, corruption, and failure to respond of the Italian Association in relation to the case of the burial niches, among other matters; (5) an intervention in a program broadcast by Radio Vall on May 10, 1990, in which Carlos and Pablo Mémoli participated, and reference was made to the case of the burial niches, the exchange of sales contracts for commodate contracts, and the supposed pressure exerted by some members of the Management Committee of the Italian Association, and (6) an article entitled “Caso Nichos: el juez dijo que los boletos de compraventa son de objeto imposible e inválidos. Todos los compradores sin excepción fueron perjudicados” [Burial niches case: the judge said that the object of the sales contracts is imposible and invalid. All the purchasers were prejudiced], published in La Libertad on June 16, 1990, in which Pablo Mémoli stated that “the case file reveals the wilful intent” with which the members of the Management Committee of the Italian Association acted in relation to the sale of the burial niches, even though the decision had been issued to provisionally dismiss the case concerning the presumed fraud in this regard. 101 76. In that decision it had also been concluded that Carlos Mémoli had committed the offense of defamation for statements made in: (1) the program broadcast by Radio Vall on May 10, 1990, in which he took part together with Pablo Mémoli (supra (5)), and (2) for a statement included in a document presented to INAM on June 27, 1990. 102 77. In particular, regarding the article “Maniobras de una Comisión Directiva” 103 (supra para. 75.1), the first instance judge considered that the statement in which the members of 101 Cf. Judgment of Court No. 7 for Criminal and Correctional Affairs of the Judicial Department of Mercedes of December 29, 1994, case No. 71,114 (file of annexes to the Merits Report, annex 3, folios 177 to 204, 212 to 216). 102 Judgment of Court No. 7 for Criminal and Correctional Affairs of the Judicial Department of Mercedes of December 29, 1994, case No. 71,114 (file of annexes to the Merits Report, annex 3, folios 194 to 199, 202 to 204 and 214). 103103 This article states: “Since the beginning of the month, Romanello, Piriz and Guarracino have been maneuvering to continue entrenched in the Italian Association of San Andrés de Giles. There are members of the Management Committee who follow them blindly. Half of them are relatives or friends of those denounced or are related to them professionally. Unfortunately, those concerned do not inform the latter that they are accessories to the presumed offense of fraud and that they could be prosecuted alongside them [Romanello, Piriz and Guarracino] for preventing this denunciation from being investigated by the Association. The members of the Management Committee have rejected the request for an investigation; they have refused this and are helping those concerned to conceal the issue by going from house to house, person to person, seeking unconditional support. […] In a ‘letter document’ at the end of this edition, we are asked to retract without telling us why we must do this; without showing how we are mistaken. Not only will we not retract, but we accuse all the signatories as accessories because they are 29