23. On December 29, 1994, the alleged victims were convicted by judgment of Criminal and Correctional Judge No. 7 of the Mercedes Judicial Department. Said judgment was upheld in the judgment of December 28, 1995 in the appeal case before the Second Chamber of the Criminal and Correctional Court of Mercedes Judicial Department. 24. The petitioners indicate that on December 30, 1997, a civil action was brought against them in connection with the same facts that were the subject of the criminal action, eight years after they occurred. 24 They indicate that, under Article 4037 of the Argentine Civil Code, civil claims are time-barred after two years. However, as of August 6, 2002, the judge hearing the civil action for damages had not ruled on the statute of limitations.25 25. The alleged victims reiterate in additional submissions, especially on the last one from February 21, 2007, that the civil action for damages brought against them has not been resolved. Nevertheless, the petitioners state that Messrs. Humberto Romanello and Antonio Guarracino celebrated an “out of court agreement” with them, resigning from the civil action brought against Mr. Carlos and Pablo Mémoli. However, Mr. Juan Piriz did not participate on that agreement, staying as the only plaintiff on the civil action for damages.26 26. The petitioners allege that as a consequence of the criminal action filed against them an incident called “General Inhibition of Property” [“Inhibición General de Bienes”] was held against them. This incident had as a result the decision to grant precautionary measures in favor of the complainants of the criminal action, in order to assure the satisfaction of a potential right to be repaired for damages as well as to assure the professional fees payment of the lawyers who participated in the criminal procedure. The decision of granting precautionary measures was dictated in March 1996 and after an appeal presented by the petitioners was reconfirmed on April 18, 1996. They assert that at the end of 1996 they submitted the professional fees payment derived from the case but despite of that, as of August 2002 and after more than 5 years, the order of inhibition of property was not withdrawn.27 27. The petitioners assert that the judicial authorities who decided the criminal action did not take account of evidence of the veracity of the statements disseminated in the daily “La Libertad” and that, during the appeal proceeding, a series of irregularities was committed, which affected their right to defense. They allege that the Second Chamber of the Criminal and Correctional Court of Mercedes Judicial Department unexpectedly set a date for a hearing, which was held without their presence. 28 They state that said hearing constituted a second opportunity for the plaintiffs to make their arguments through the reading of a document.29 They allege that these facts are in violation of 24 Complaint of February 12, 1998, p. 3. 25 Submission of the petitioners of August 6, 2002, p. 4. 26 Submission of the petitioners of August 6, 2002, pp.4-5 and “Out of Court Agreement” between Mr. Carlos and Pablo Memoli and Messrs. Humberto Romanello and Antonio Guarracino, annexed to the submission of August 6, 2002. 27 Submission of the petitioners of August 6, 2002, p. 3. 28 Ibid., p. 3. 29 Ibid., p. 2-3.