inadmissible. 207 On September 18, 2001, the court hearing the case annulled the precautionary measure, considering that the higher court in the criminal proceeding had “rejected […] thee civil actions filed in this jurisdiction, because the complainant had not appeared as a complainant claiming damages.” 208 110. Subsequently, in October 2001, the complainant and plaintiff Piriz requested a general injunction against the sale or encumbrance of property in the context of the civil proceeding, indicating that, owing to the “guilty verdict in the criminal jurisdiction, there was a possibility of obtaining an order for precautionary measures in the proceedings for damages, since there is no longer any doubt about the admissibility of the claim, only about the amount (arts. 1102 and similar of the Civil Code).” The measure was ordered on October 31, 2001. 209 The representative of plaintiff Piriz stated that “he accepted responsibility for the losses that the precautionary measure ordered […] could cause the other party.” 210 The presumed victims appealed this decision and, subsequently, filed an appeal for reversal and a subsidiary appeal, indicating, inter alia, that the decision had been taken “without any legal grounds.” On December 20, 2001, the first instance judge decided not to admit the appeal for reversal, but granted the appeal requesting the appellant to present a copy of the pertinent parts of the case file. 211 111. The following day, the presumed victims presented the necessary copies and, on February 8, 2002, they requested that the case file be referred to the higher court for a decision on the appeal. 212 On December 6, 2001, the presumed victims asked the representative of complainant Piriz to assume responsibility for “the costs and losses that could arise, if he has requested [the injunction] without justification.” 213 However, the Court has no information in the case file on the results of these requests. 112. The measure was re-registered at the request of complainant Piriz in October 2006 and December 2011. 214 The presumed victims filed an appeal for reversal and subsidiary appeal against the last decision on re-registration, but on December 30, 2011, the judge decided that the decision could not be reconsidered and granted “the appeal, without 207 Cf. Appeal for clarification of April 22, 1996 (file of annexes to the Merits Report, annex 13, folios 244 and 245), and decision of April 25, 1996 (file of annexes to the Merits Report, annex 5, folio 222). 208 Order of the judiciary of the province of Buenos Aires of September 18, 2001, case No. 62,821 (file of annexes to the Merits Report, annex 14, folios 247 and 248). 209 Cf. Decision of October 31, 2001 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2117). 210 Note of November 1, 2001 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2118). In this regard, the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure establishes that “[t]he precautionary measure may only be decided under the responsibility of the party who requests it, who must provide security for all the costs and harm that could be caused, if it has been requested without justification. The judge shall graduate the type and amount of the security in keeping with the greater or lesser plausibility of the justification and the circumstances of the case. Guarantees from banking institutions or individuals with proven financial reliability may be offered.” Decree Law 7425/69, Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure of the province of Buenos Aires, art. 199 (file of annexes to the State’s final written arguments, available at http://www.gob.gba.gov.ar/legislacion/legislacion/l-7425.html) 211 Cf. Briefs of November 15, 2001 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folios 2121 and 2126), and decision of December 20, 2001 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2137). 212 Cf. Brief of December 21, 2001 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2139), and brief of February 8, 2002 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2142). 213 Brief of December 6, 2001 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2131). 214 Cf. Note of October 2006 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2564), and decision of December 16, 2011 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, annex 2, folio 1705). 45