the provision of Article 423.6, then in force, of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Buenos Aires Province.30 28. The petitioners state that said alleged violations of their right to defense were upheld by the Supreme Court of the Buenos Aires Province and the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation. They allege that Mr. Carlos Mémoli was convicted to one month of imprisonment, suspended, because his attorney used the word “unscrupulous” in an administrative file, referring to the members of the Governing Committee of the Italian Society. They indicate that, under the Argentine Code of Criminal Procedure slander made in a judicial file is not subject to sanction. They indicate that Mr. Pablo Mémoli was convicted to five months of imprisonment, suspended, for publishing newspaper articles denouncing alleged irregularity in the management of the Italian Mutual Assistance Society of San Andrés de Giles.31 29. Lastly, the petitioners allege that in April 2005, they were notified via the Federal Court to deposit, payable to the order of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation and subject to enforcement, the sum of 2000 Argentine pesos in connection with the denial of the extraordinary appeal [recurso extraordinario] by said court on October 5, 1997.32 C. Position of the State 30. The State asserts that they were notified of the petition four years after it was received by the Executive Secretariat of the Inter-American Commission. It indicates that the excessive delay in the “pre-admissibility” stage should constitute grounds for abstention by the Commission from considering the complaint, since it affects the rights and prospects of the State denounced, and makes it difficult to adopt early measures to resolve the dispute under domestic law or reach a friendly settlement.33 31. It states that the complaint before the Commission amounts to a private dispute stemming from personal disputes between Mr. Carlos Mémoli and Messrs. Antonio Guarracino, Humberto Romanello, and Juan Bautista Ricardo Piriz. It indicates that the criminal action brought by the latter originated from a contentious relationship regarding an Italian course offered by the Italian Mutual Assistance Society. It adds that the dispute took on greater proportions with the criminal action brought for alleged fraud instituted by Mr. Carlos Mémoli,34 the public importance accorded the matter through articles published in the daily “La Libertad,” and two radio interviews in which the alleged victims participated. 32. The State alleges that the alleged victims were prosecuted and convicted, in both the first and second instance, with the assistance of attorneys and the opportunity to produce evidence, all in full observation of due process guarantees. It asserts that Messrs. Carlos and Pablo Mémoli were convicted of only some of the charges in the criminal action and that the civil action brought by the plaintiffs in the context of the criminal proceeding was denied.35 30 The petitioner mentions the following extract: “…The parties and their attorneys may not take the stand for more than half an hour, and are prohibited from making written submissions.” Submission of the petitioners of July 10, 2003, p. 2. 31 Complaint of February 12, 1998, pp. 1-2 and submission of the petitioners of August 6, 2002, p. 2. 32 Submission of the petitioners of August 21, 2006. 33 Reply of the State to the petition of March 26, 2002, pp. 2-7. 34 See paragraph 12 of this report. 35 Reply of the State to the petition, op. cit., p. 8.