103. In addition, since the proceeding was opened for evidence in 2003 (supra para. 99), both the presumed victims and the plaintiff have filed different remedies or requests concerning other aspects of the evidence stage. In particular, the presumed victims filed two appeals for annulment and a subsidiary appeal, which were rejected because, according to the provisions of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure, “the decisions of the judge on the production, denial and substantiation of evidence [cannot be appealed].” 182 They also submitted two briefs 183 that were also rejected because the Procedural Code did not provide for them. 184 In addition, as of March 2006, both parties asked that the evidence stage be declared concluded on at least five occasions. 185 Furthermore, both parties requested that the opposite party be declared negligent on several occasions. 186 104. In addition, on several occasions starting in August 2008, the presumed victims asked that the complaint be rejected based on what they alleged were “new facts” (the judgment in the Kimel case, the admission of this case before the inter-American system, and the amendment of the law on defamation), all of which, in their opinion, would have direct effects in their favor in the said proceedings. The presumed victims asked that the complaint be rejected based on these “new facts” in August 2008, and in October and November 2009, respectively. 187 On March 23, 2010, the judge decided that the changes in the law did not meet the definition of a new fact. 188 However, following an appeal by the presumed victims, the judge rejected his findings concerning the new fact in his preceding decision and granted the appeal with a deferred effect. 189 On June 14, 2010, the case file was forwarded to the Departmental Chamber which decided that the case file had been forwarded prematurely, because the procedural requirements established by law had not been met. 190 The Court has 182 Brief of September 16, 2004 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folios 2217 and 2218); decision of October 6, 2004 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folios 2219 and 2220); brief of October 8, 2004 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2235); decision of October 22, 2004 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2236); Decree Law 7425/69, Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure of the province of Buenos Aires, art. 377 (file of annexes to the State’s final written arguments, available at http://www.gob.gba.gov.ar/legislacion/legislacion/l-7425.html). The presumed victims also submitted a request to reject the expansion of the examination, which was rejected on the same grounds. Cf. Brief of October 25, 2004 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folios 2238 to 2239), and decision of July 27, 2005 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2245). 183 Cf. Brief of May 10, 2006 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folios 2503 to 2505), and brief of May 23, 2006 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2507). See also, decision of May 17, 2006 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2506). 184 Cf. Decision of May 26, 2006 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folios 2508 and 2509). 185 Cf. Brief of March 3, 2006 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folios 2261 to 2263); brief of October 18, 2006 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2566); brief of December 1, 2006 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2582); brief of May 12, 2010 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, annex 2, folio 1642), and brief of November 19, 2011 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, annex 2, folios 1698 and 1699). 186 Cf. Brief of October 18, 2006 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2566); brief of December 1, 2006 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2582); brief of March 3, 2006 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folios 2261 to 2454); brief of March 28, 2006 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folios 2476); brief of June 12, 2008 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2621); decision of July 1, 2008 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2625); brief of February 10, 2009 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2651); brief of October 8, 2010 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, annex 2, folio 1655), and brief of November 19, 2011 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, annex 2, folios 1698 and 1699). 187 Cf. Brief of August 22, 2008 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2636); brief of October 2009 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2673), and brief of November 23, 2009 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folios 2692 to 2703). 188 Cf. Decision of March 23, 2010 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2720). 189 Cf. Decision of April 9, 2010 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2727). 190 Cf. note of June 14, 2010 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, annex 2, folio 1646), and decision of June 23, 2010 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, annex 2, folio 1648) 42