13 workload does not exonerate the State from its obligation to try cases expeditiously. e. That Decree 591 did not afford the guarantees of an independent and impartial tribunal in compliance with Article 8 of the Convention and that with the application of that decree and of Decree 600 to the instant Case, the threat of violation of guaranteed rights ceased to be hypothetical and became a reality to the detriment of the rights of the Genie-Lacayo family. 39. On October 7, 1996, the Government submitted its summation to the Court, the main points of which were as follows: a. That it had been demonstrated that domestic remedies were not exhausted, inasmuch as the criminal case was still before the Supreme Court of Justice of Nicaragua and that none of the exceptions provided for in Article 46(2) of the Convention on Human Rights were applicable. b. That it has been demonstrated that criminal due process before the Nicaraguan judicial authorities had been respected and the father of the youth JeanPaul Genie-Lacayo had been afforded access to all the remedies established in the criminal procedural legislation and that there had been no unwarranted delay in rendering a judgment in the case. c. That it has been demonstrated that the duration of the case had been reasonable if the police inquiry and the action of the Attorney-General's prior to July 23, 1991, were excluded, and recalling that the dispute over jurisdiction had lasted "from July 2, 1992, to December 20, 1993." That it was necessary to study the many pieces of evidence provided, the remedies and incidents proposed, the difficulty encountered in convening the members of the Supreme Court of Justice for it to rule on the appeal lodged by the father of the youth Jean-Paul Genie-Lacayo, the congestion of the criminal courts in Nicaragua, and their dearth of staff. d. That there was no evidence to show that by taking the case to the military court it was appealing to the "Sandinista juridical conscience," since the text of the judgments delivered in the first and second instances shows that the evidence had been subject to a valuative analysis in accordance with the rules of healthy criticism and the law. e. That the full Supreme Court of Justice had been fully constituted as of September 19, 1996. f. That both the ordinary and military courts had acted independently and impartially. There was no proof of any interference or intervention on the part of the Executive Branch or the Army. 40. On January 22, 1997, the Court decided not to call on the witnesses General Humberto Ortega-Saavedra and General Joaquín Cuadra-Lacayo again to testify and declared the evidentiary phase to be at an end in order to begin to hear the merits of the Case, with a view to delivering a judgment. 41. On November 17, 1994, the International Legal Advisors Esq. and the Foundation for the Development of International Law presented an Amicus Curiae, alleging the nonexhaustion of domestic remedies during the phase of preliminary objections.