damages. 140 This request was based, inter alia, on the fact that the “National Congress had enacted a new law that decriminalizes libel and defamation [in compliance with the order issued by the Inter-American Court in the Kimel case],” so that, pursuant to the Criminal Code, they argued that “the new law entered into effect automatically.” 141 93. On December 9, 2009, the above-mentioned Chamber rejected the action on unconstitutionality in limine. Subsequently, it determined that, “in fact, what the petitioner is seeking is the review of the judgment,” which was not admissible either, “even in view of the new avenue that could – perhaps – be explored.” The Chamber declared the appeal for review inadmissible, “because [the case] did not meet one of the requirements” established for this appeal, as the application of the amendment to the law would “merely play an instrumental role” because the term of the punishment had concluded. The Chamber indicated that, in order to apply a more favorable criminal law retroactively, “it is necessary that the more favorable law has been enacted during the sentence […], even if this is suspended,” and that “the appeal for review is inadmissible when the term of the punishment has concluded.” To reach this conclusion, the Chamber took into account that the period of four years had passed “for it to be considered that [the conditional conviction] had not been handed down,” and the period of 8 to 10 years, for the reinstatement of “the possibility of a second conditional conviction”; also that “the latter [period] coincided with that of the expiry of the registration of the said conviction […] and, consequently, the maximum time within which the conviction could be taken into consideration as a computable factor.” 142 94. Following the rejection of an appeal for clarification 143 on December 23, 2009, the presumed victims file filed a special remedy of unconstitutionality against the judgment 144 (supra para. 93). In February and May 2010, this remedy was admitted and referred to the Supreme Court of Justice of the province of Buenos Aires, 145 which declared that “the special remedy of unconstitutionality had been admitted erroneously” on July 4, 2012. In this decision, all the judges considered that the remedy had been admitted erroneously, because there was no evidence that “any constitutional matter had been decided, nor could any grounds or wrongful act be observed.” In his opinion, one of the judges of the Supreme Court added that the presumed victims’ arguments “lack the minimum supporting documentation required in order to be considered.” In addition, this judge concluded that “the arguments [were] inappropriate to prove that the [Kimel] case and this one [were] similar.” After repeating the Chamber’s decision on the admissibility of the appeal for review, he indicated that “no evidence about the facts that justified the conviction had been added in order to corroborate that it entail[ed] a supposed impairment of the right to freedom of expression on issues of significant public interest,” and that, furthermore, no “documentation [had been provided] that prove[d] that the appellants were being sued for compensation, which was a substantial issue, because, it was precisely on this circumstance that the wrongful act was 140 Cf. Brief of November 23, 2009 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 2, folios 2808 to 2813). 141 Brief of November 23, 2009 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 2, folio 2813). 142 Judgment of December 9, 2009 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 2, folios 2824 to 2826). 143 Cf. Briefs of December 11, 2009 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 2, folios 2832 and 2833 to 2834) and Decision of December 17, 2009 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 2, folios 2835 to 2836). 144 Cf. Brief of December 23, 2009 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 2, folios 2843 to 2848). 145 Cf. Decision of February 9, 2010 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 2, folios 2849 to 2850), and note of May 28, 2010 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 2, folio 2855). Following an error in notification, the presumed victims were notified on December 15, 2010. Cf. note of December 15, 2010 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 2, folio 2859). 37