Pablo Mémoli and, as victims of the violations declared in Chapter IX, they will be the beneficiaries of the measures that this Court now orders. B. Measures of restitution and satisfaction and guarantee of non-repetition 202. International case law, and in particular that of the Court, has established that the judgment constitutes per se a form of reparation. 338 Nevertheless, considering the circumstances of this case and the effects on the victims arising from the violation of Articles 8 and 21 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, declared to their detriment, the Court deems it pertinent to determine the following measures of reparation. B.1) Measure of restitution B.1.2) Annulment of the criminal conviction 203. The Commission asked the Court to order the State “[t]o annul the criminal convictions imposed on Carlos Mémoli and Pablo Carlos Mémoli and all their consequences.” The representatives asked that “[t]he effects of the criminal judgment be annulled and, consequently, the civil proceeding.” For its part, the State indicated that “although the appeal on unconstitutionality filed by the presumed victims before the Supreme Court of Justice of the province of Buenos Aires [in February 2010 regarding the request to annul the criminal convictions] had not been successful” “their special federal appeal before the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation is still pending a decision.” 204. The Court concluded that the criminal conviction against Carlos and Pablo Mémoli did not constitute an undue limitation of their freedom of expression (supra para. 149). Therefore, the Court finds that it is not required to order a measure of reparation in this regard. B.1.3) Adoption of the necessary measures to decide the civil case and to lift the general injunction on property 205. The Commission asked that “[t]he general injunction on the property of Carlos Mémoli and Pablo Carlos Mémoli be lifted immediately.” It also asked that “all necessary measures be taken to resolve the civil case against Carlos Mémoli and Pablo Carlos Mémoli expeditiously and impartially, safeguarding the rights enshrined in the American Convention.” The representatives asked that “the civil rights that had been curtailed be reinstated” and that the civil proceeding be annulled. For its part, the State argued that “these recommendations stem from an erroneous assessment of the judicial procedure established in Argentina’s legal system that […] regulates the proceeding for damages on the basis of the dispositive principle and offers the necessary legal instruments to control and limit the scope of a measure that establishes the general injunction on property, all of which depends, exclusively, on the action of the party against whom the injunction has been ordered.” 206. In the instant case, this Court declared the international responsibility of Argentina for failing to comply with its obligation to decide, within a reasonable time, the civil proceeding for damages filed against Messrs. Mémoli. Therefore, the Court considers that the State must adopt the necessary measures so that, taking into account the provisions of this Judgment (supra paras. 167 to 183), the said civil proceeding is decided as promptly as possible. In 338 Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of September 19, 1996. Series C No. 29, para. 56, and Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador, supra, para. 177. 75