50 and social situation prevailing in the place and at the time when the events occurred. 193 The Court can therefore apply its criteria to determine the complexity of the case, observing that the following features are present: (1) a large number of accused; (2) a complex political and social situation, and (3) difficulty collecting evidence. 191. The dates to be used in determining a reasonable amount of time, in the context of the Court’s jurisdiction, are September 5, 1984, when Argentina ratified the American Convention and recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court, through April 28, 1998, when the Supreme Court turned down the writs of queja against the denial of the appeal of exception (supra par. 96). 192. The case file before the Court details in particular the following actions taken by the State: (1) August 11, 1987, decision by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces to order the release of 17 alleged victims; (2) August 19, 1988, charges filed by the Prosecutor General of the Armed Forces; (3) June 5, 1989, judgment by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces convicting the alleged victims to pay fines to the Air Force and to imprisonment and full and permanent disqualification concurrently with discharge from service; (4) June 9, 1989, decision to deny the constitutional motion lodged by Mr. Marcial and Mr. Argüelles; (5) June 14, 1989, decision, based on an appeal, to send the case to the National Appeals Chamber; (6) April 23, 1990, decision by the National Appeals Chamber to admit the appeals; (7) December 5, 1990, decision by the Appeals Chamber to declare that the criminal action had lapsed under the statute of limitations; (8) July 30, 1991, decision by the Supreme Court to vacate the decision to invoke the statute of limitations; (9) December 6, 1991, enactment of law 24.050, restructuring the composition and criminal jurisdiction of the judicial branch; (10) October 6, 1992, decision by the Appeals Chamber to delay the hearing stipulated in article 445-bis of the Code of Military Justice; (11) September 16, 1993 decision by the Appeals Chamber disqualifying itself from continuing to hear the case; (12) November 16, 1993, decision by the National Chamber of Cassation denying jurisdiction; (13) February 21, 1994, decision by the Supreme Court finding that the National Chamber of Criminal Cassation held jurisdiction; (14) March 20, 1995, judgment by the National Chamber of Cassation denying the petitions to invoke the statute of limitations, to declare nullity and to grant amnesty, lightening the sentences already ordered, and acquitting one of the alleged victims; (15) July 7, 1995, decision by the National Chamber of Criminal Cassation to deny the appeal of exception lodged by the defense teams; (16) April 28, 1998, decision by the Supreme Court to deny the grievance, or writ of queja filed in response to the denial of the appeal of exception, and (17) June 2, 1998, decision by the Supreme Court to deny the remedy of fact lodged by two of the alleged victims (supra par. 80 to 96). 193. Furthermore, regarding the procedural actions by the parties, the Court has seen: (1) August 11, 1987, decision by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces stating that the case had been outside of the Supreme Council for over two years, having been taken over by the Supreme Court and the National Appeals Chamber on several occasions in response to remedies that had been brought (supra par. 80); (2) October 3, 1988, the alleged victims submitted their different defense briefs (supra par. 81); (3) June 6 and 8, 1989, the alleged victims filed a constitutional motion and a writ of habeas corpus against the detentions ordered under decision 17/87 (supra par. 82); (4) November 14, 1989, the defense teams filed complaints of judicial error, based on the provisions of article 445-bis of the Code of Military Justice (supra par. 85); (5) February 20, 1995, Mr. Candurra's attorneys requested invocation of the statute of limitations on the criminal action; (6) April 20, 1995, the defense teams lodged an appeal of exception against the judgment of the National Chamber of 193 Cfr. ECHR, Case of Milasi v. ltaly. Judgment of June 25, 1987, par. 16. This was also cited in the Case of Luna López v. Honduras, par. 190.