court of first instance the next day. On March 6, 1997, the corresponding Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s decision. B. The State 16. The State alleges that the case is inadmissible for the following reasons. First, where the arrest is concerned the State notes that “according to the case records, the petitioner was in fact detained on November 19, 1991, at Pedro de Mendoza and Ministro Brinin the Federal Capital.” It further points out that on December 20, 1991, the arrest of Juan Carlos Bayarri, retired Argentine Federal Police Sergeant First Class, was changed to temporary detention pending trial, on the grounds that “he is considered, prima facie, to be guilty of five counts of criminal conspiracy, kidnapping and extortion.” The commission of these crimes was allegedly admitted under questioning, confirming a court deposition. 17. The State reports that the case instituted charging that the petitioner was unlawfully deprived of his liberty is now with Criminal and Correctional Court Nº 4 of the Lomas de Zamora Judicial Department of the Province of Buenos Aires. On May 7, 1997, the case was dismissed without prejudice. The prosecutor appealed that ruling and requested that the evidentiary measures requested by the aggrieved private party be taken. The competent Appeals Court granted that petition. On orders from the judge, the case is now in full progress, after having been delayed by procedural defects whereby there was no aggrieved party in the case.4 18. With regard to the allegation of torture, the State maintains that the report on the medical examination done of Bayarri at the time of his detention makes no reference to a perforated eardrum. It also contends that these allegations were not reported to the judge who presided over the inquiry. The State also argues that the remedies under domestic law have not been exhausted in the matter of the alleged torture, inasmuch as cases brought by the petitioner are being heard by court authorities who have no association to the proceedings prosecuting the crimes for which the petitioner was deprived of his liberty. According to the State, it cannot be taken as proven fact that the petitioner was tortured or that any torture is attributable to the State. On December 9, 1998, the State presented information in connection with the case involving unlawful treatment–mistreatment or torture-being heard by Federal Criminal Court of First Instance Nº 13, which on July 6, 1998, at the request of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, had ordered that the case bedismissed. The pretrial proceedings were moved to Chamber VII of the Federal Appeals Court by virtue of the appeal that the petitioner filed as plaintiff in the case.5 19. With regard to the delay in the proceedings on the criminal case being heard by Criminal and Correctional Court Nº 6, where the petitioner is charged with several crimes, the State argued that the proceedings are now in full progress and that the ruling of first instance has not been delivered. On December 19, 1994, the plenary phase began with the prosecutors’ formal writ of indictment, which was amplified on December 27, 1995. On September 16, 1996, the evidentiary phase of the proceedings got underway. The State argues that there were difficulties with the preliminary phase of the criminal proceedings. One was the fact that the inquiry was transferred from the Federal Capital’s Examining Court Nº 25, where it began in August 1991, to Federal Court Nº 6. That change was ordered by the Federal Appeals Court as a result of a motion filed by one of the defendants alleging that the judge presiding over the case was not competent. The State also argued that given that the case involved ten defendants and because of the nature of the crimes charged, prosecution of this case was very complex. 20. Concerning the right to be brought to trial within a reasonable time period or to be released, in its initial responses the State argues that for purposes of application of Article 7(5) 4 The State is citing Article 87 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Province of Buenos Aires. Case file 6.306 was added to this case ad efectum videndi et probandi. Case file 6.306 contains the decision on the petition ofhabeas corpus filed by the petitioner’s father on November 19, 1991, which was denied on November 26, 1991, on the grounds that it was inadmissible because the petitioner was in custody by order of a court in another jurisdiction. 5 4