22. Both the criminal and the administrative proceedings initiated by the Tribunal that acquitted the plaintiffs were dismissed, in April of 1998 and in September of 1999, respectively, on the grounds that the conduct of the prosecutors in the case of "Padilla Echeverry, José Gilbardo and others for violation of Law No. 23.737" did not constitute a violation of the law. In the opinion of the petitioner, those rulings reflected the superficial nature of the investigation conducted by the prosecutor’s office into the criminal complaint, and the unwillingness of the investigating magistrate and of the public prosecutor to impose sanctions of any kind on the officials who introduced false evidence into the principal trial. 23. According to the petitioner, on June 9, 1996 he attempted to obtain conditional release under Article 1 of Law 24.390, which requires that preventive detention may not exceed 2 years without the issuance of a judgment. In effect, his defense submitted the appeal for release to the Sixth Oral Tribunal, which had jurisdiction, but the appeal was denied pursuant to Article 10 (11 according to the current numbering) of Law 24.390, which denies the benefit of conditional release to persons accused under Law 23.737 (possession of or trafficking in narcotics). 24. The petitioner challenged the decision of the Oral Tribunal before the National Court of Criminal Cassation, the first Chamber of which ratified the decision issued on February 24, 1997. The petition states that the plaintiff then decided to appeal to the Supreme Court of Justice, which rejected his submission on September 25, 1997. 25. The petitioner has indicated before the IACHR that, at the end of 1999, he filed an administrative complaint in order to obtain payment of compensation for the time that he had been illegally deprived of his liberty. According to the information before the Commission, that complaint is still pending a decision at first instance. 26. In short, the complaint maintains that the State unnecessarily and excessively prolonged the preventive detention of Mr. Jenkins; denied him the benefit of conditional release established by Article 1 of Law 24.390 on the basis of a clearly discriminatory rule; and denied him justice because the authorities failed to carry out a complete and effective investigation into the irregularities that had led to his detention and trial, and failed to punish those responsible. B. Position of the State 5