The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the appellate court (ARGENTINA 6 A and ARGENTINA 6 B, which also found that litigation tax should be paid on exequatur ptoceedings), which had granted partial enforcement of a US award (and its US confirmation decision) after modifying it to comply with the public policy provisions of the Argentinean regime of debt consolidation. Both parties had acknowledged the public policy nature of these provisions; since the claimant had done so by not appealing the decision of the court of appeal, the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to review this issue. The Court affirmed the holding of the appellate court that an exequatur court had the power under the Argentinean Code of Civil Procedure to modify an award before enforcing it, in order to bring it in line with Argentinean public policy – here, the debt consolidation regime. The Court relied on Art. VII of the 1958 New York Convention, which allowed the party seeking enforcement of a foreign award to rely on a more favourable domestic law, in the interest of promoting the enforcement of foreign awards. The Supreme Court also rejected the arguments raised by Argentina that enforcement should be denied because the arbitral tribunal (i) held, in violation of Argentinean law on the powers of representation, that a document signed by an unauthorized person interrupted prescription; and (ii) erroneously applied the five-year statute of limitations for prescription under Dutch law rather than the one-year time limit applicable to contracts of reinsurance and retrocession under Argentinean law. Both arguments failed because they were not among the grounds for refusal exhaustively listed in the Convention and because they would imply a review of the merits of the arbitral decision, which the Court stressed was impermissible. (See also ARGENTINA 6 A and ARGENTINA 6 B.)