11 February 10, 1998, Carlos and Pablo Memoli raised an objection on the grounds of res judicata and 45 lapsing of the statute of limitations, and on March 2, 1998 provided their answer to the complaint and 46 moved for it to be dismissed. On March 28, 1998, the plaintiffs to the civil suit filed an addition to the 47 48 complaint, to which the petitioners provided an answer. On September 11, 2001, Carlos and Pablo Memoli reached an out-of-court settlement with plaintiffs Antonio Guarracino and Humberto Romanello, 49 with Juan Piriz remaining as the only plaintiff in the suit. The case file before the IACHR includes records of the proceedings in the civil case up to November 2009 and, as of that date, the case had not 50 been resolved at the trial level. Based on the information provided by the petitioners and undisputed by the State of Argentina, as of the date of the adoption of this report, the decision of the trial court is still 51 pending. 53. As a result of the judicial delay in the civil case, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Province of Buenos Aires sanctioned two judges and put forth a recommendation to another one. On March 12, 2008, Pablo Memoli filed a complaint against the presiding judges of Courts No. 1, 5 and 10 for 52 Civil and Commercial Matters of the Department of Mercedes, respectively, alleging the crimes of malfeasance in office, denial and delay of justice, abuse of authority and, ‘all in all, ongoing violation of the law for the purpose of favoring the plaintiffs’” as a result of the performance of these judges in the civil 53 case for damages. During this suit, the court noted that “most of the questioning, reflects disagreements 54 with rulings that were issued, a subject matter [falling] outside [of the scope] of this court [procedure].” Nonetheless, it noted on the record that Dr. Martha Rosa Cuesta, the judge presiding over Court No. 1 for Civil and Commercial Matters “[was delayed] in ruling on the request for declaring the end to the evidentiary period,” which “caused considerable delay” and that Dr. Tomas Etchegaray, the judge presiding over Court No. 10 for Civil and Commercial Matters, caused a delay of several months from the 55 time of recusing himself until the time judgment was handed down. Consequently, the court declared “that the behavior of Dr. Etchegaray and Dr. Cuesta conspires against the prestige and efficacy of the Judiciary and therefore it is appropriate to apply disciplinary corrective action, taking into consideration— as a mitigating factor—the absence of any history of disciplinary action against either of them” and 56 imposed on them the disciplinary sanction of “a warning.” . The record also shows judicial delay caused by Dr. Roberto Sanchez, the judge presiding over Court No. 5 for Civil and Commercial Matters, but the 57 court noted that “the recognized error did not bring any harm to processing the motion.” Therefore, the 45 Annex 20. Brief of the petitioners of February 10, 1998, addressed to Judge Tomas Martin Etchegaray, Court for Civil and Commercial Matters, “Romanello et al v Memoli Carlos et al in re damages”, (page 19). Annex to the communication of the petitioners of January 15, 2009 (received on January 23, 2009). 46 Annex 21. Brief of the petitioners of March 2, 1998 addressed to Judge Tomas Martin Etchegaray, Court for Civil and Commercial Matters, “Romanello et al v Memoli Carlos et al in re damages”, (page 68). Annex to the communication of the petitioners of January 15, 2009 (received on January 23, 2009). 47 Annex 22. Brief of Alberto Salaberry of May 28, 1998 (page 81). Annex to the communication of the petitioners of January 15, 2009 (received on January 23, 2009). 48 Annex 23. Brief of the petitioners of March 28, 1998, addressed to Judge Tomas Martin Etchegaray, Court for Civil and Commercial Matters (page 165). Annex to the communication of the petitioners of January 15, 2009 (received on January 23, 2009). 49 Annex 24. Brief of Antonio Guarracino, Humberto Romanello and Pablo Memoli of September 11, 2001 (page 208). Annex to the communication of the petitioners of January 15, 2009 (received on January 23, 2009). 50 See communication of the petitioners of January 14, 2010 (received on February 1, 2010), Annexes. 51 See communications of the petitioners dated October 27, 2008, January 15, 2009, April 30, 2009 (received on May 13, 2009), July 20, 2009 (received on July 27, 2008), and April 28, 2010. 52 Annex 25. Judgment issued on March 12, 2008, Supreme Court of Justice of the Province of Buenos Aires, Case File 2001-535/07, pg. 1. Annex to the communication of the petitioners of April 25, 2008 (received on May 6, 2008). 53 Annex 25. Judgment issued on March 12, 2008, Supreme Court of Justice of the Province of Buenos Aires, pg. 1. 54 Annex 25. Judgment issued on March 12, 2008, Supreme Court of Justice of the Province of Buenos Aires, pg. 2. 55 Annex 25. Judgment issued on March 12, 2008, Supreme Court of Justice of the Province of Buenos Aires, pgs. 2-4. 56 Annex 25. Judgment issued on March 12, 2008, Supreme Court of Justice of the Province of Buenos Aires, pg. 5. 57 Annex 25. Judgment issued on March 12, 2008, Supreme Court of Justice of the Province of Buenos Aires, pg. 4-5.