exhausted with the decision of the Supreme Court rejecting the final “recurso de hecho,” and that in each case the alleged victim filed a petition within six months from the date of notification of that judgment. With respect to the State’s contention that the alleged victims have not exhausted domestic remedies with respect to their claims for compensation, the petitioners maintain that they did in fact file an administrative action seeking compensation for the period they were held in preventive detention in excess of the final judgment rendered– and were denied. B. The State 31. In its submissions before the Commission, the State first emphasizes that the exercise of military jurisdiction in the criminal proceedings against the defendants was in full accordance with national and international law. The State notes that the defendants were members of military personnel at the time of the crimes for which they were ultimately convicted, and that the crimes were integrally linked to their military service. Further, the State maintains that its military tribunals were set up by the legislative branch to dispense justice in such cases, and were not subordinate to the executive. Accordingly, the State affirms that War Councils, such as that which issued the sentence of conviction, are tribunals of justice with appeal before the federal jurisdiction, thus fully respecting the guarantees of the right to a second instance review of any conviction. 32. The State underlines that military jurisdiction is a necessary corollary to the special characteristics of the military as an institution and the distinct values protected by military codes. Consequently, military tribunals are competent and constitutional to judge military personnel for crimes set forth in the Code of Military Justice. On the basis of its position with respect to the validity of military jurisdiction in this case, and in relation to the so-called “doctrine of fourth instance” the State affirms that the Commission would only be competent to review claims insofar as the petitioners alleged some failure to comply with the procedures set forth in the Code of Military Justice or that the proceedings had violated the American Convention. 33. With respect to the alleged violations of the right to liberty under Article 7 of the American Convention, the State emphasizes that the alleged victims regained their liberty approximately 10 years ago, so that this aspect of the petition is essentially moot and should be dismissed. The State notes that the claims before the Commission to the effect that the orders authorizing the preventive detention of the alleged victims were not duly founded were raised before both the Supreme Council and the National Chamber of Criminal Casation, and rejected as lacking any basis. With respect to the petitioners’ claim that the alleged victims should be compensated for the time spent in detention, in particular that which exceeded the length of the prison sentences issues, the State indicates that they did not invoke or exhaust internal remedies for such compensation, so that such claims were inadmissible pursuant to the terms of Article 46(1) of the American Convention. 34. With regard to the petitioners’ claims concerning detention incommunicado, the State affirms that the decision to extend this form of detention for certain alleged victims was duly founded in conformity with the Code of Military Justice. While this foundation was not recorded for certain other alleged victims, the State notes that the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces considered this a disciplinary infraction on the part of the judge concerned, but determined that it did not give rise to any nullity in the proceedings, and that this determination was upheld on appeal by the National Chamber of Criminal Casation. Similarly, with respect to the petitioners’ allegations concerning threats or mistreatment at the time of the alleged victims’ initial declarations, the State indicates that such claims were placed before the competent judicial authorities and judged to be without merit. 35. In response to the claims that the alleged victims were not tried within a reasonable time in violation of the guarantees of Article 8, the State contends that the calculation of reasonableness should take into account the number of persons involved, the kind of proof that had to be obtained, and the duration of the facts under investigation. The State notes that in the present instance, the proceedings involved 32 defendants, a principal file of over 14,000 6