16 80 American Convention.” The IACHR notes as well that the State of Argentina subsequently amended the definitions of the offenses of calumny and slander in its Criminal Code in response to the judgment of the 81 Court in the Kimel case, making the definition of these offenses more precise, eliminating prison terms as punishment for them, and establishing that expressions referring to matters of public interest cannot 82 constitute the offenses of calumny or slander. Consequently, the Inter-American Court found that Argentina had fulfilled its obligation to adapt its domestic law in the area of freedom of expression, as 83 ordered by the Court in its judgment in the Kimel case. 64. In short, the Inter-American Court has found that the privision criminalizing slander in existence at the time of the criminal conviction of Carlos and Pablo Memoli was inconsistent with the Convention. In strict application of this legal precedent, the Commission finds that the criminal sanction imposed on Carlos and Pablo Memoli violated their right to freedom of expression, in violation of Article 13 of the Convention in connection with Article 1.1 and 2 of the this treaty. B. Fair trial rights (Article 8) in relation with freedom of thought and expression (Article 13) and Article 1(1) of the American Convention 65. Article 8.1 of the American Convention recognizes the right of every individual to be heard before a competent judge or court within a reasonable period of time: Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature. 66. The Inter-American Court has held forth that the right of access to justice means that 84 controversies are disposed of within a reasonable period of time, inasmuch as a protracted delay can, in 85 and of itself, constitute a violation of due process guarantees. 80 IA Ct. of HR, Case of Kimel Vs. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment May 2, 2008. Series C No. 177, par. 66. 81 Annual Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, 2009 Annual Report of the Special Rapporteurship for Freedom of Expression, pgs. 387-88, pars 30-32, available at: http://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/2009sp/RELE%20ESP%202009.pdf 82 Cfr. Law 26.551, enacted on November 26, 2009, available at: http://infoleg.gov.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/160000164999/160774/norma.htm. Based on this amendment, the respective articles of the Argentinean Criminal Code establish: Article 109: Calumny or falsely accusing an individual of committing a specific and detailed criminal offense which gives rise to a public action, will be punished with a fine of three thousand pesos ($3,000) to thirty thousand pesos ($30,000). In no instance shall expressions referring to matters of public interest or those that are not affirmative constitute the offence of calumny. Article 110: He who intentionally dishonors or discredits a particular individual shall be punished with a fine of one thousand five hundred pesos ($1,500) to twenty thousand pesos ($20,000). In no instance shall expressions referring to matters of public interests or those that are not affirmative constitute the offense of slander. Nor shall words harmful to honor constitute the offense of slander when they are relevant to a matter of public interest. 83 Cfr. IA Ct. of HR, Case of Kimel Vs. Argentina. Monitoring of Judgment Compliance. Decision of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights May 18, 2010, pars. 30-35, available at: www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/kimel_18_05_10.pdf. 84 Cfr. IA Ct. of HR, Case of Suarez Rosero Vs. Ecuador. Merits. Judgment November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, par. 73, available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_35_esp.pdf; IA Ct. of HR, Case of Heliodoro Portugal Vs. Panama. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, par. 148, available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_186_esp.pdf, and Case of Salvador Chiriboga Vs. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections and Merits. Judgment May 6, 2008. Series C No. 179, par. 59, available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_179_esp.pdf. 85 Cfr. IA Court of HR, Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al Vs. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, Reparation and Costs. Judgment June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, par. 145, available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/Seriec_94_esp.pdf; IA Ct. of HR, Case of Heliodoro Portugal Vs. Panama. Continúa…