7 The Commission and the victim’s representatives presented the following final pleadings: a) That the Court find that the Argentine State violated and continues to violate the right to a fair trial and the right to judicial protection, protected under Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, respectively, and the right to property recognized in Article 21 of the Convention, all in relation to that State’s obligation under Article 1(1) of the Convention, to respect the rights recognized in the Convention and ensure their free and full exercise. That the Court also find that Articles XVIII and XXIV of the American Declaration have been violated. b) That the State order that Mr. José María Cantos be restored to the full enjoyment of his rights and, inter alia, be given adequate reparation and compensation for the aforesaid violations, pursuant to Article 63(1) of the Convention. c) That Argentina be ordered to effect payment of the sums corresponding to material and moral damages within no more than 6 months of the notification of the Honorable Court’s judgment, plus interest in the event of delinquency, at the delinquency interest rate that Argentine banks charge. d) That the Honorable Court is asked to set an equitable sum for court costs and expenses, including those incurred for travel and accommodations and the fees of the attorneys representing José María Cantos. It is requested that the State be ordered to pay those sums of money within six months, plus interest in the event of delinquency, at the interest rate that Argentine banks charge for delinquency. The Honorable Court is asked to order that the payments for material and moral damages and costs and expenses, including the fees of the representatives of the original plaintiff, be exempt from any existing or future tax or charge. e) That the Honorable Court order that any attachments or other general property encumbrances resulting from the legal action undertaken by José María Cantos with the Supreme Court be lifted and that his personal records with the corresponding public agencies be expunged so that José María Cantos’ reputation and honor are not sullied by inaccurate or offending information. f) It is once again requested that the matter not be referred back to the domestic courts to fix the amount of compensation, bearing in mind the arguments made by the representatives of the plaintiff when the submissions on reparations were presented, and inasmuch as the Argentine judicial system is in a state of collapse because, among other reasons, of the socio-economic measures adopted by the government, which are public knowledge. Argentina, for its part, requests that the Court dismiss the application and underscores the following in its final arguments: From the allegations made by representatives [of the alleged victim] and from the testimony given in the public hearing of June 17, 2002, the following conclusions can be drawn: a) The Argentine Republic has not committed any violation of Article 8(1) of the Convention to the detriment of Mr. Cantos, because: It was Mr. Cantos who filed a baseless claim with the Argentine Supreme Court, seeking astronomical sums virtually unprecedented in the judicial history of the Argentine Republic. It was Mr. Cantos who determined and manipulated the duration of the proceedings before Argentina’s Supreme Court. It was Mr. Cantos who consented to and even sought rulings by the Supreme Court such as deferment of the preliminary objections until the final ruling was handed down. It was Mr. Cantos who, either by his unfathomable inaction or by his clearly immaterial and irrelevant motions calculated to delay the proceedings, succeeded in dragging out what even the Commission itself acknowledged was a complex case.