23 77. On May 10, 1984, the defense counsel of Mr. Ambrosio Marcial filed a petition for a change in procedural status, invoking article 316 of the Code of Military Justice78 and arguing that “[t]he lengthy amount of time that has passed, nearly four years, which so far shows no sign of imminent solution, is causing profound psychological and emotional instability in my client, making it impossible for him to take part in normal life with his family[;] this is compounded by the lack of resources as he is receiving only 50% of his wages.” 79 The case file contains no reply to this motion. B Facts subsequent to the State's recognition of the contentious jurisdiction of the Court (September 5, 1984) 78. Mr. Óbolo was released on March 31, 1987.80 79. On July 23, 1987, the National Appeals Chamber ordered the release of Mr. Oscar Cardozo in response to a motion lodged by his defense challenging the military court’s “tacit denial” of his request for release81 and offered the following considerations: “proceedings ha[d] far exceeded six and a half years, with no sign of a date certain for completion, even though the accused Cardozo had already exceeded in pretrial detention the maximum term allowable for the lesser alternative sentence (article 537) and over half of the maximum for the most severe sentence (article 845), which suggest[ed], based on the guidelines of article 579 subparagraph 2, that he ha[d] essentially served whatever sentence he may have eventually been given if found guilty. Under these circumstances, keeping Miguel Oscar Cardozo in rigorous pretrial detention [wa]s a violation of article 18 of the Constitution, because precautionary arrest ha[d] ceased to function strictly as a safeguard and had become in fact an anticipatory sentence.”82 80. On August 11, 1987, a decision by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces ordered the release of 16 alleged victims: Mr. Galluzzi, Mr. Pontecorvo, Mr. Di Rosa, Mr. Giordano, Mr. Tomasek, Mr. Machin, Mr. Mercau, Mr. Aracena, Mr. Maluf, Mr. Candurra, Mr. Arancibia, Mr. Morón,83 Mr. Argüelles, Mr. Muñoz, Mr. Marcial and Mr. Pérez. The Supreme Council of the Carlos Julio Arancibia and Mr. Félix Oscar Morón (evidence file, folios 1066 to 1069, 6941 to 6944, 6948 to 6050, 6957 to 6962, 7938 to 7941, and 7956 and 7957). 78 Code of Military Justice (Law 14.029, July 4, 1951): “Art. 316. – In all other instances of military trials, the process against the accused will proceed while they remain on release and in service, but they are required to attend all matters of the trial. If they fail to respond immediately to this obligation, they will be placed in attenuated pretrial detention.” (evidence file, folio 12850). 79 Petition for change of procedural status by Mr. Ambrosio Marcial, May 10, 1984 (evidence file, folios 7869 and 7870). 80 Cfr. Evidence file, folio 1010; merits file, folio 2269. 81 The decision by the National Appeals Chamber on July 23, 1987 stated, “[t]he petition by the defense to obtain a change in the procedural status of the accused, in view of the lengthy incarceration he has been serving in rigorous pretrial detention, received no response by the military court. The motion to challenge this tacit denial was admitted by this Chamber” (evidence file, folios 8054 to 8058). 82 83 Decision by the National Appeals Chamber, July 23, 1987 (evidence file, folios 8054 to 8058). Mr. Félix Oscar Morón, according to both the State and the Inter-American Defenders, had been released on December 27, 1984 (brief of final pleadings by the Inter-American Defenders, merits file, folio 2194 and respondent’s answering brief, merits file, folio 1007). This is clear from notices submitted by Mr.Félix Oscar Morón in which he stated that he was free, which led to the request for information by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces in a decision on July 23, 1984 (evidence file, folios 7956 and 7957). In a reply on August 24, 1984, Judge of Military