25. The State further represented that on July 15, 1994, Resolution No. 2294 was issued granting Mr. Preckel a benefit equivalent to the value of 2647 days payment encompassing the period of July 30, 1976 to October 28, 1983.21 The amount was $172,952 (Argentine pesos).22 B. Employment status of Mrs. Perrone and Mr. Preckel 26. Two days after Mrs. Perrone and Mr. Preckel were detained, the General Tax Directorate opened an administrative investigation proceeding against them, as provided for under Article 36 of the Regulation on Investigations of Public Servants - Decree No. 1798/80, because of their absences from their work places.23 Said decree provides that it is applicable to personnel covered under the basic legal regime of public servants and establishes the following, in the relevant portions:24 Art. 36. When the agent is deprived of liberty, he shall be under preventive suspension, while the pertinent preliminary investigation is conducted, and shall be reinstated into service within two (2) days of regaining his liberty. Art. 37. When the agent is undergoing a proceeding for an incident unrelated to public service and the nature of the criminal offense that he is charged with is incompatible with performance of his duty, in the event no other duty can be assigned to him, his preventive suspension may be ordered until such time as judgment is issued in his criminal proceeding. (…) Art. 39. Payment of wages for the period of the suspension shall conform to the following rules: a) When it [the suspension] arises from events unrelated to service, the agent shall not be entitled to payment of any lost wages, except under Article 37, in the event that he is acquitted or the case is dismissed with prejudice in the criminal court and only for the period of time that he has remained free and his reinstatement has not been authorized. b) When it arises from acts of service or related acts, the agent shall be entitled to receive the accrued lost wages for the time of suspension, only if in the respective administrative proceeding, he was not found at fault and sanctioned. In the latter instance, should a minor sanction be applied, other than an expulsion, lost earnings shall be paid in the appropriate proportion and, should the sanction be expulsion (dismissal, exoneration), the earnings shall not be paid to him.25 27. On July 27, 1976, the DGI forwarded a communication to the Air Defense Artillery Division noting that Mrs. Perrone and Mr. Preckel “have been absent from work for a time and that their next of kin have claimed that they were detained.”26 The DGI contended that “because there was no written record of [… continuation] 19 State’s communication of February 7, 2001. Perrone. 20 State’s communication of February 7, 2001. 21 State’s communication of February 7, 2001. 22 State’s communication of February 7, 2001. 23 Initial petitioners. State’s communication of October 31, 1997. 24 Regulation on Investigations. Decree No. 1798/80. Article 2. 25 Regulation on Investigations. Decree No. 1798/80. 26 Official Letter of the DGI, July 27, 1976. Administrative Investigation Proceeding. Annex to initial petition on Elba Clotilde 5