series of "apparently dilatory” motions were filed that led to constitutional challenges before the Supreme Court. With respect to the delay in the criminal proceedings, the State argued that the holdups were due to "apparent malicious practice by the defendants' defense counsels, relying on a criminal system still lacking in infrastructure and relatively new." 13. The State says that on November 26, 2003, the preliminary hearing was reached with the case "practically extinguished," as a result of which the Public Prosecution Service and the plaintiff filed an objection on constitutional grounds, requesting that certain provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure be declared inapplicable. After the judge declared herself as lacking jurisdiction to take up objection, the State recognized the "tardiness" of the Supreme Court of Justice, which took 4 years and 8 months to rule on the objection on constitutional grounds aimed at preventing the criminal action against the alleged torturers from being declared extinguished. The State says that on May 5, 2008, the Supreme Court of Justice ruled in favor of the alleged victim and the Public Prosecution Service, declaring certain contested articles of the Code of Criminal Procedure inapplicable, which, according to the State, "removed any impediment to holding a new preliminary hearing to review the indictment with a view to initiating the oral trial in the case.” As of August 2008, it says that the matter was still before the Supreme Court in order to resolve a request for clarification made by the defendants' defense. 14. It should be added that as a result of the above, the State initially challenged the admissibility of the petition on the grounds of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. It stated that "the possibility clearly exists of holding the preliminary hearing, the oral and public trial," and the potential pursuit of subsequent remedies. It argued that while the excessive delay in disposing of the objection on constitutional grounds was questionable, the new situation created by the decision in his favor ruled out suspicions and allowed the judicial operators "to search for the real truth.” It added that Decision and Judgment No. 195 of May 5, 2008 should be taken into account as evidence of the filing of the complaint in accordance with Article 48(1)(c) of the American Convention and Article 34(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR. 15. The State also said that there were no new possibilities for dilatory interference in the process given the change in Paraguay's political context. It noted that at the time the petition was lodged, the country was being governed by authorities belonging to the political party that had been in power for more than 60 years and remained so until 2008, when there was a transition in power. In that regard, it said that the record was "withheld" by a judge for 2 years and 6 months, until he was recused and separated from the case; therefore, "there is no possibility within the judiciary of further interference of a purely dilatory nature." Thus, it committed itself to ensuring that the process is conducted with unrestricted respect for the procedural deadlines provided by domestic law. 16. On November 13, 2020, the State reported that the oral and public trial lasted four months and that a judgment was handed down on December 30, 2019, which declared “not proven the existence of the punishable act of torture," and consequently, the three defendants in the case were acquitted on the basis of "reasonable doubt," since it was not possible from the evidence to establish conclusively the events under investigation and the participation of the accused. The State added that the judgment is not final because the case is currently in the Court of Appeal for Criminal Matters, Third Division, Asunción, because appeals were filed. It also said that "the State cannot but point out that its position with regard to the facts in the case must be consistent with the judicial pronouncements that have been made and that may be made in the near future.” In addition, the State said that it would keep the IACHR informed of the progress of the proceedings and "take action on other matters related to the case as soon as possible.” III. FINDINGS OF FACT A. Relevant law 17. The Organic Law of the National Police in force at the time states: 2 2 Organic Law of the National Police, Law 222/93. 3