more beneficial procedural rule enacted after the commission of the offenses (Article 9); failed to provide them with compensation for having been convicted by a final sentence issued through judicial error (Article 10); denied them equal protection of the law (Article 24); and denied their right to judicial protection (Article 25). 17. The central claims posed by the petitioners concern the length of the criminal proceedings against them. First, with respect to the claims under Article 7, the petitioners indicate that the alleged victims were held in preventive detention for periods of more than 7 or 8 and a half years while the proceedings were pending. They allege that this far exceeded the applicable limits under both national and international law. 18. The petitioners emphasize that the alleged victims were held in preventive detention for over twice as long as the prison sentences eventually issued. According to the information provided, 14 of the defendants were sentenced to prison terms between 2 and 4 and ½ years. Two others were sentenced to 5-year terms, 1 to 6 years and 1 to 7 years. Additionally, the petitioners argue that the preventive detention orders lacked the necessary foundation in law and fact from the very start of the proceedings. 19. The petitioners maintain that the defendants were held incommunicado when first detained, and that, as a matter of domestic due process, this was not duly authorized, and was in any case unjustifiably prolonged. The information presented suggests that most were held incommunicado in excess of 7 days, for periods of up to 10 or 12 days. They note that the relevant authorities recognized that certain violations had taken place in this regard, when the Supreme Council and the National Chamber of Criminal Casation determined that the file contained no grounds for the extension of the incommunicado detention of certain defendants. Neither the Supreme Council nor the Chamber, however, accepted the defendants’ claims that this should nullify the proceedings, and instead only indicated that the statute of limitations on proceedings to sanction the judge in question had expired. 20. Second, with respect to Article 8, the petitioners allege the violation of the right to be tried within a reasonable time, as well as a series of fair trial guarantees. In particular, they allege that the prolongation of the proceedings prejudiced the right of the defendants to be presumed innocent, and adversely affected their ability to defend themselves. 21. The petitioners maintain that the right to an adequate legal defense was not respected, first because the defendants had no legal counsel in the initial stages of the process against them. They allege that the defendants lacked counsel for the first two and a half years of the proceedings. The petitioners indicate that even once they obtained representation, the defenders in question were not lawyers. In this regard, they note that the Code of Military Justice provides for the right of an accused to be assisted in presenting his or her defense by a “military defender”--an active or retired member of military personnel. 22. The petitioners further argue that the American Convention, the Argentine Constitution and the Code of Criminal Process recognize the right of a defendant not to be compelled to testify against him or herself, but that the Code of Military Justice does not respect that guarantee. They indicate that, consistent with the terms of the Code of Military Justice, the judge presiding over the investigation exhorted the accused to tell the truth in their initial declarations and indicated that this would be viewed favorably. They argue that this is especially problematic because the Code of Military Justice does not recognize the right of the accused to have counsel present at that stage of the proceedings. They indicate that this constituted pressure for the purpose of obtaining a confession. The petitioners also refer to other largely unspecified threats against the defendants at the time of these initial declarations. 23. Additionally, the petitioners maintain that the designation of expert accountants by the military tribunal prejudiced the defense of the accused. They argue that the three experts – each a military official in charge of an accounting department within the military - were “intimately linked” to the facts then under investigation, and had worked in direct proximity with at least two of the defendants. Consequently, the petitioners allege that they could not 4