of the Convention, exhaustion of the remedies under domestic law refers to the remedies available to appeal the reasonableness of the detention, not the consideration of the merits of the case. The State reports that on March 30, 1995, the Federal Appeals Court upheld the lower court ruling denying the petitioner’s first request for release; on June 22, 1995, the corresponding chamber dismissed the extraordinary appeal filed by the petitioner. The State alleges that the second time the petitioner requested release, his petition was denied on the grounds that it was filed late. The State reports that the corresponding court of first instance denied the petitioner’s third petition for release on September 12, 1996, a ruling then upheld by the higher court on October 31, 1996. That court then held that if the petitioner’s situation had changed since the time his request for release was denied on September 12, 1996, then he would have to again exhaust the remedies under domestic law under Article 46 of the Convention. Finally, the State argues that the last request for release was presented on January 9, 1997, and denied by a ruling of the court of first instance the following day. That ruling was upheld by the court of second instance on March 6, 1997. Since then, the State alleges, the petitioner has not availed himself of any other mechanism available to him to exhaust the remedies under domestic law. On December 5, 2000, the State argued that the petitioner had not exhausted all the legal mechanisms that the law provides to appeal the decisions denying his first, third and fourth petitions for release, specifically the federal remedy provided under Law 48, whereby the highest court in the land could decide the matter. 21. In regard to the case in which the petitioner was charged with a number of crimes, the State argues that the following factors have to be considered: a) the petitioner’s is a very complex case because there are a number of defendants, all charged with various counts of kidnapping for purposes of extortion, one of which ended in a death; b) significant headway has been made in the investigation; there is an indictment, and the respective volumes of evidence are being processed; c) the case is being prosecuted in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure, Law 2372. According to the State, the defendants had the option of choosing oral proceedings, an option allowed under the new Code of Criminal Procedure, Law 23.984. By agreement with the other defendants and to have the same defense tactic, the first defendant to appear opted to be prosecuted under the earlier Code and thus sealed the fate of the other defendants, one of whom was the petitioner, thus making any allegations regarding a delay in the proceedings relative; d) under Argentina’s system for written and oral criminal proceedings, there are effective remedies to challenge an unwarranted delay in rendering judgment. One such remedy is the complaint, which is an extraordinary, summary proceeding of which the petitioner has never availed himself.6 22. In the instant case, the State argues that the “reasonableness of the petitioner’s detention” has been established and that the preventive detention pending trial that was ordered and maintained is not a violation of Article 7(5) of the Convention. 7 As for the duration of the detention, the State alleges that: a) the decisions denying the petitioner’s requests for release, decisions upheld on appeal, were based not on the length of time of incarceration but on other considerations and the personal circumstances of the petitioner, such as the number and gravity of the crimes with which he is charged, the danger that the commission of those crimes posed and the fact that as a senior noncommissioned officer of the Argentine Federal Police, he used knowledge and means obtained as a police officer to commit the crimes; b) under Article 10 of Law 24.390, persons accused of crimes that carry penalties or are committed under aggravating circumstances equivalent to those cited in paragraphs 7 to 11 of Law 23.737 may be disqualified.8 According to the indictment, this exception would apply in the petitioner’s case.9 Article 11 of Law 23.737 would also apply in his case, since one of the 6 "The petition of complaint may be filed: 1) when the judge denies the petitions of appeal and nullification, or only the petition of appeal, which must be done by court order; 2) when the legal time limits are allowed to lapse without the pertinent decision being issued, provided none of the cases in which the delay causes automatic loss of jurisdiction obtains; or 3) when pending proceedings in the circumstance provided for in Article 442 have not been ordered.” Article 514 of Argentina’s Code of Criminal Procedure (1888 Law 2372). 7 The State cites Report Nº 12/96, Argentina, case 11.245, March 1, 1996, IACHR, paragraphs 69 and 70. 8 Article 10 of Law 24.390 (Official Gazette 22/11/94) states that: “Those charged with the crime provided for in Article 7 of Law 23.737 and those to whom the aggravating circumstances provided for in Article 11 of that law apply shall be expressly precluded from the scope of the present law.” 9 The State is citing the indictment: “That he is charged with four counts of criminal conspiracy and kidnapping for purposes of extortion, in combination with the crime of concealing a person for the purpose of forcing the victim or a third party to do or tolerate something against his will; in one case, the kidnapping resulted in the death of the victim. 5