September 4, 1992 that a letter be issued to the Office of Land Registry, so a copy of said maps would be forwarded.77 The relevant land register inquiry was conducted from March to May of 1993.78 In an official letter on May 6, 1993, the Office of Land Registry informed the court that (i) it was unable to provide the information requested about parcel 1; and (ii) with regard to parcel 2, it reports that the property belongs to the “Supreme Government of the Nation.”79 On November 10, 1003, the petitioner asked the court to issue a letter to the Registry of Property in order to provide information on who holds ownership of parcel 1,80 which was ordered by the judge on November 16, 1993;81 the original copy of which was delivered to the attorney of the plaintiff in order to serve notice of it on April 14, 1994.82 69. On February 22, 1996, the petitioner’s attorney submitted a pleading requesting the following of the judge: I. II. III. In light of the negative outcome of the letters issued in these proceedings and taking into account that the suit is being brought against the occupant of the property and owner of the elements that gave rise to the accident of the minor, I withdraw my request for the issuance thereof. Consequently, being that irrefutable evidence exists that said elements belonged to the Army, this action is being brought against the Ministry of Defense and/or whoever proves to be responsible for the acts that led to my son’s injuries. I request that a copy of the complaint be served.83 70. On February 27, 1996, the court ordered that the complaint be served to the “Ministry of Defense – General Staff of the Army”, which had a period of 60 days to respond to it.84 The answer to the complaint (and to the objection to the prior motion to dismiss based on the statute of limitations [defense of prescription]) was presented by the Ministry of Defense in the case proceedings on September 3, 1996.85 On October 8, 1996 the court directed said pleading to be 77 Case proceedings file titled “Furlan Sebastian Claus v National State for Damages,” page 26. communication from the State received on October 15, 2008. Annex to 78 Case proceedings file titled “Furlan Sebastian Claus v National State for Damages,” pages 27-37. Annex to communication from the State received on October 15, 2008. 79 Case proceedings file titled “Furlan Sebastian Claus v National State for Damages,” pages 34 and 36. Annex to communication from the State received on October 15, 2008. 80 Case proceedings file titled “Furlan Sebastian Claus v National State for Damages,” page 38. communication from the State received on October 15, 2008. Annex to 81 Case proceedings file titled “Furlan Sebastian Claus v National State for Damages,” page 38 back . Annex to communication from the State received on October 15, 2008. 82 Case proceedings file titled “Furlan Sebastian Claus v National State for Damages,” page 39 back. Annex to communication from the State received on October 15, 2008. 83 Case proceedings file titled “Furlan Sebastian Claus v National State for Damages,” page 40. Annex to communication from the State received on October 15, 2008 (for the purposes of the present report, in reproducing the verbatim quote, spelling errors of written accents were omitted that were present in the original; this does not, however, entail any alteration of the substance or content of the quote). Free translation by the IACHR. 84 Case proceedings file titled “Furlan Sebastian Claus v National State for Damages,” page 40 back. Annex to communication from the State received on October 15, 2008. 85 Pleading submitted on September 3, 1996 by the judicial representative of the National State – General Staff of the Army titled “Object Prescription – Answer Complaint.” Case proceedings file titled “Furlan Sebastian Claus v National State for Damages,” page 45-48 back. Annex to communication from the State received on October 15, 2008.