a) Actions of the police and criminal proceedings 1. Facts that occurred before the State’s acceptance of the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction (September 5, 1984) 15. On July 28, 1980, based on information provided confidentially by Mr. Grande, the Bank Division of the Argentine Federal Police learned that, in the Murillo Credit Union (hereinafter “the Union”), where Mr. Grande worked as Head of Loans, loans were being awarded without the necessary guarantees. That same day, the Bank Division of the Argentine Federal Police (hereinafter “the Federal Police”) searched the Union’s headquarters and seized files and other related documents. 16. On July 29, 1980, the judge of the First National Court of First Instance for Federal Criminal and Correctional Matters (hereinafter “the First Criminal and Correctional Court”) intervened and Mr. Grande was arrested at the offices of the Banco de la Nación, where he had been summoned to continue collaborating with the investigation. 17. On August 12, 1980, in case No. C144/8, the First Criminal and Correctional Court decided the situation of various defendants, including Mr. Grande. The federal judge “found that the irregularities revealed by the documents seized by the Federal Police should be considered malversation of funds.” The facts analyzed by the judge consisted in the alleged fraudulent handling of the files corresponding to the loans granted by the Union. 18. That same day, August 12, 1980, the First Criminal and Correctional Judge issued a court order for the pretrial detention of Mr. Grande and decreed the attachment of his assets for the criminal offense established in Article 7 of Law 20840, because the act had resulted in the liquidation of the Union; he was released on his own recognizance. Mr. Grande was detained from July 29 to August 12, 1980; a total of 14 days. 19. On November 7, 1980, the Central Bank of the Argentine Republic asked to be considered a plaintiff in the action. 20. On August 1, 1983, the preliminary proceedings were concluded. 21. On August 15, 1983, the Federal Prosecutor accused the alleged victim of being the author of the criminal offense defined in article 8 of Law 20840 with the aggravating factor established in article 6(b). According to the State, on October 3, 1983, the prosecutor’s injunction and the complaint were forwarded to the six defense counsel of the six defendants 2. Facts that took place after the State’s acceptance of the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction (September 5, 1984) 22. The defense counsel of one of the defendants requested “[t]he suspension of the time granted for the oral hearing on two occasions,” and on March 20, 1985, the continuation of the process was ordered with regard to the other defendants. On October 11, 1985, the defense counsel of another of the defendants 23. affirmed the invalidity of the seizure of the documentation and the First Federal Criminal and Correctional Judge deferred his decision of this issue until the final 6