15 times the Court suspended proceedings. Two such occasions stand out: first, during the evidentiary phase of the Supreme Court proceedings, one of the experts twice petitioned the Court, the first time on August 29 and the second time on October 5, 1998, seeking extensions as he did not have available to him the originals of the 1982 Agreement and its authentication.25 The Supreme Court agreed to suspend proceedings.26 The second instance, between March 30, 1993 and April 25, 1994, was because the case file was on loan to the National Criminal and Correctional Court. Mr. Cantos therefore requested suspension of the proceedings, a request the Court acceded to by order of June 22, 1993.27 e. The representatives of the Province and of the State presented their briefs of objections on September 16 and 19, 1986, respectively. Their arguments were that the agreement was neither legitimate nor valid, and that the statute of limitations had expired. 28 Mr. Cantos answered those briefs on October 14, 1986;29 then, on November 24, 1986, he asked that the State’s Attorney for the Province intervene to avoid subsequent nullifications.30 However, the Supreme Court denied that request on the grounds that it was time-barred.31 f. The Province and the State answered the complaint on November 11 and 14, 1986, respectively.32 On December 4, 1986, the Supreme Court joined the preliminary objections to the merits33 in order to determine whether the agreement was valid and on that basis apply the proper rules on statute of limitations. On February 20, 1987, Mr. Carlos Alberto Jensen Viano joined the case, bringing background information related to the searches34 (supra 7, b and c). On March 18 of that year, the Supreme Court effected the necessary transmissions to the opposing sides. Once their respective replies were received, on April 28, 1987, the Supreme of the Nation (at 149 et seq., Volume I); Judgment of November 28, 1989, San Miguel de Tucumán Federal Appeals Court. Case 769/86. “Federal Prosecutor’s Office against José María Cantos for alleged forgery of a document, to the detriment of the Province of Santiago del Estero,” Appendix 11 of the rebuttal. 25 Supreme Court Case File C-1099, Vol. XI, f. 2030, and Volume VIII, f. 1422. 26 Supreme Court Case File C-1099, Vol. XI, f. 2030 reverse side. 27 Supreme Court Case File C-1099, f. 2030, Volume II, f. 633, Volume IV. 28 Testimony of María Dolores Spaini de Retondo before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, June 17, 2002; Supreme Court case file C-1099, fs. 162 and 174 et seq., Volume I; Rebuttal of the objections entered by the Province of Santiago del Estero in 1986, appendix 20 of the complaint; and Rebuttal of the objections brought by the Argentine State on September 19, 1986, appendix 21 of the complaint. 29 Supreme Court Case File C-1099, Volume I, f. 188; Answer from Mr. Jose M. Cantos to the objections submitted by the defendants on November 18, 1986, appendix 23 of the complaint. 30 Supreme Court Case File C-1099, Volume II, f. 226. 31 Supreme Court Case File C-1099, Volume II, f. 228. 32 Supreme Court Case File C-1099, f. 195 et seq., Volume I, 212 et seq., Volume II; answer filed by the Province of Santiago del Estero on November 11, 1986, and answer of the State, November 14, 1986, appendix 22 of the complaint. 33 Supreme Court Case File C-1099, Volume II, f. 227. 34 Supreme Court Case File C-1099, Volume II, f. 237 et seq.