4 “Appellate Court”) annulled preventive detention because “the considerations above impede making the accused responsible for application of an unconstitutional instrument [Memorandum 40] when [Miguel Ángel Espósito] may not have been aware of that” and “based on the fact that his behavior “was in accordance with practices customarily in force.” Analysis of the file shows that according to the Report by Police Captain Miguel Ángel Espósito, the official who made the arrests, he acted unofficially applying Memorandum No. 40 of the Directorate of Judicial Affairs of the Argentine Federal Police, issued on April 19, 1965. Said Memorandum was an internal communication by an official in charge of the Judicial Directorate of the Argentine Federal Police to another official in charge of the Directorate of Security, which “left in [the] hands [of Police Captain Espósito] the decision to act without consulting any court, the action being extra-judicial;” 9) on August 28, 1992 the 9th Court decided “to provisionally dismiss in the instant preliminary proceedings [...] and set aside the prosecution of Miguel Ángel Espósito [...] with respect to the facts for which he was investigated,” the latter being the “aggravated illegal imprisonment of Walter David Bulacio, now deceased, and the other persons mentioned in that decision.” Both parties appealed this decision: the defense counsel requested definitive dismissal and the applicant requested annulment of the dismissal and continuation of the investigation; 10) on November 13, 1992 the VI Court of the Appellate Court decided to “make definitive the dismissal [...] definitive” with respect to Miguel Ángel Espósito in this case, which led the applicants to object to the judges and even seek a political trial against them. The former was turned down by the VI Court of the Appellate Court and the latter “up to the time [of the application being filed before the Court] no decision ha[d] been reached;” 11) in 1993, the representatives of the next of kin of Walter David Bulacio filed a civil lawsuit against the Federal Argentine Police and Police Captain Miguel Ángel Espósito for the amount of $300,000.00 (three hundred thousand pesos). This case has been suspended until rendering of the criminal judgment; 12) the applicants filed an extraordinary appeal in the criminal case, which was turned down on February 12, 1993 by the VI Court of the Appellate Court, and an appeal of complaint against refusal to accept appeal, decided by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation on April 5, 1994, which found it to be in order and decided that the extraordinary appeal filed was in order, and annulled the challenged decision which it considered not to be a “valid judicial act,” as it lacked factual and legal grounds; 13) on July 7, 1994 the VI Court of the Appellate Court found that it “seem[ed] necessary to continue investigating the scope of the behavior attributed to the accused and it annul[led] the [provisional dismissal];”