judgment. This decision was confirmed by the Second Chamber of the National Appellate Chamber for Federal Criminal and Correctional matters (hereinafter “the Second Federal Criminal and Correctional Appellate Chamber”) on June 30, 1986. 24. On September 2, 1986, Mr. Grande answered the prosecutor’s accusation, three years after the oral hearing. 25. On December 29, 1987, the judge in charge of the proceedings decided to open the case for the submission of evidence and, in a decision of April 18, 1988, ordered the production of different pieces of evidence. 26. On May 24, 1988, the Second Federal Criminal and Correctional Appellate Chamber decreed the invalidity of the searches of the Union and all the acts that resulted from them, finding that they had been conducted without a court order. This decision was based on the preliminary objection of lack of prosecutorial action filed by the defense counsel of another of the defendants, arguing that the evidence upon which the charges were based was obtained illegally, because it resulted from an illegal search. Although it considered the said objection inadmissible, the said Second Appellate Chamber stated that the invalidity of the acts could be declared ex officio at any stage at which omissions, violations or defects that could affect public order were proved. 27. On June 9, 1988, one of the defendants requested the respective judge to dismiss the proceedings against him. On January 13, 1989 the judge of the case worked during the judicial recess in order to decide this case. 28. On January 24, 1989, based on the decision on the invalidity of the searches of the Second Federal Criminal and Correctional Chamber of May 24, 1988, the federal judge ordered the “definitive dismissal” of all the defendants, including Mr. Grande, “in connection with the facts for which they were being prosecuted,” and declared that the criminal action had extinguished owing to the statute of limitations. b) Administrative law proceeding 29. Mr. Grande filed a suit against Argentina in the administrative courts seeking damages for the alleged responsibility of the State for the deficient functioning of the administration of justice. On April 14, 1992, the Judge of First Instance of the Federal Administrative Law Court (hereinafter “the First Instance Judge” delivered his ruling accepting the claim. Both the representatives of the defendant and the State appealed the ruling before the National Federal Administrative Appellate Chamber (infra para. 85). 30. On April 6, 1993, the Second Administrative Appellate Chamber overturned the judgment on appeal, and rejected the claim. Mr. Grande filed a special federal appeal against this decision before the Federal Chamber of Administrative Law on the grounds of arbitrariness. On June 10, 1993, this Chamber decided the appeal, denying it and confirming the judgment appealed. 31. Lastly, the alleged victim filed a complaint based on the denial of the special remedy and, on April 12, 1994, the Supreme Court of Justice decided to reject it. Mr. Grande was notified of the decision on May 3, 1994. 7