88. Furthermore, the Chamber expressly rejected the alleged status of public interest of the statements made by Messrs. Mémoli. In this regard, in the said decision it indicated that “furthermore, neither can the citing [by the presumed victims] of ‘to defend or to guarantee actual public interest’ be admitted” because “when the law (C.P. 111) 127 refers to ‘public interest,’ it is basically referring to the usefulness for the whole population or of all the components of a social group and this essentially in relation to the interest of the State, to its legal interests, all of this compared to a more or less general interest, but only of persons or associations.” The Chamber confirmed “the suspended sentences of one month’s imprisonment for Carlos Mémoli and five months’ imprisonment for Pablo Mémoli, with costs, and the obligation of both of them, within ten days […] to publish the sentencing part of the judgment.” 128 B.3) Subsequent remedies 89. The presumed victims filed an appeal for clarification of the second instance judgment, which was declared inadmissible on April 25, 1996. 129 In addition, they filed an appeal for declaration of nullity and non-applicability of the law against the second instance judgment before the Supreme Court of the province of Buenos Aires, where they questioned the decision concerning the hearing of December 5, 1995 (supra paras. 85 and 86), and that it had not taken into account, among other matters, “the defense argument made by Pablo Mémoli, as a journalist, of the right to freedom of the press.” 130 On April 18, 1996, the Second Chamber for Criminal and Correctional Matters of Mercedes decided “[t]o refer the special appeal on unconstitutionality to the Supreme Court of Justice of the province of Buenos Aires,” while it declared that the special appeal on non-applicability of the law was inadmissible. 131 127 Article 111 of the Argentine Criminal Code, in force at the time, established: “[a]nyone accused of libel can only prove the truth of the imputation in the following cases: (1) If the purpose of the imputation was to defend or guarantee an actual public interest; (2) If the act attributed to the offended person has resulted in a criminal proceeding; (3) if the complainant should request the evidence of the accusation made against him. In these cases, if the truth of the imputation is proved, the accused is absolved from punishment.” Report of the Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales (CELS) on the case of Kimel (file of annexes to the final written arguments of the representatives, folio 3554). Despite having been asked (supra para. 8 and note 7), none of the parties provided a copy of the Criminal Code in force at the time of the sentences imposed on Messrs. Mémoli, so that the Court took the text of Article 111 of the Criminal Code from other documents provided to the body of evidence, such as the one indicated supra. 128 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, folios 110 and 128). 129 Cf. Decision on the appeal for clarification of April 25, 1996 (file of annexes to the Merits Report, annex 5, folios 222 and 223). In this regard, the Code of Criminal Procedure of the province of Buenos Aires stipulates that this remedy “shall be granted to the parties only for clarifying an obscure or uncertain concept that may be contained in the decision or judgment that decides some interlocutory proceeding or finalizes the case. It may also be used to decide on a point that is accessory or secondary to the main matter, and that may have been omitted when deciding the latter.” Cf. Code of Criminal Procedure of the province of Buenos Aires. Law 3,589, art. 289 (file of annexes to the State’s final written arguments, available at http://www.gob.gba.gov.ar/legislacion/legislacion/l-3589.html). 130 Appeal for declaration of nullity and non-applicability of the law, undated (file of proceedings before the Commission, folios 431 to 450). 131 Decision of April 18, 1996 (merits file, Annex E, folio 499). Article 349 of the Code of Criminal Procedure establishes that the appeal on unconstitutionality is appropriate: “1. In the case of final judgments in last instance that are delivered in violation of articles 156 and 159 of the Provincial Constitution. 2. If the interested party has discussed the constitutionality of laws, decrees, ordinances or regulations that statute on matters regulated by the said Constitution and the final judgment is contrary to the claims of the appellant.” In addition, article 350 establishes that the remedy of non-applicability of the law “[i]s appropriate in all cases in which the final judgment revokes an acquittal or imposes a punishment of more than three years’ imprisonment.” Code of Criminal Procedure of the province of Buenos Aires. Law 3,589, arts. 349 and 350 (file of annexes to the State’s final written arguments, available at http://www.gob.gba.gov.ar/legislacion/legislacion/l-3589.html) 35