27. For its part, the State considers that it has complied with its obligations by having acquitted the victim once the falsity of the evidence submitted against him was demonstrated, and by having investigated the facts with the purpose of determining who was responsible for that falsification. 28. In its initial response of March 15, 1999, the State reported that the administrative and criminal proceedings for establishing responsibility for the production and use of falsified evidence under criminal case 73 of the Sixth Oral Tribunal of the Federal Criminal Court, "Padilla Echeverry, José Gilbardo and others for violation of Law No. 23.737," had not been concluded. Consequently, it considered that remedies within the domestic jurisdiction had not been exhausted. 29. In its submission of September 16, 1999, the State admitted that the administrative and criminal proceedings against the prosecutors Eamon Mullen and José Barbaccia before the Sixth Oral Tribunal of the Criminal Court of Buenos Aires had been dropped on the grounds that their conduct was not irregular, and that in fact there was other evidence against the petitioner that could have linked him with the crime of drug trafficking. The State again insisted that Mr. Jenkins had been acquitted in the "Padilla Echeverry, José Gilbardo and others for violation of Law No. 23.737" case, and was in fact released before the judgment was issued, which meant that his allegations with respect to Article 7 were groundless. 30. The State also declared in the second submission that it has at all times respected the petitioner's right to a fair trial and due process, and that it allowed him to intervene throughout the proceedings against him, and to pursue the appeals available within domestic jurisdiction, and that in its opinion there has been no violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. 31. The Government maintains that the petitioner should initiate civil proceedings to establish whether he was due some form of compensation, and that in any case the alleged violation of Article 10 of the Convention could not have occurred. Given that the petitioner was never convicted, there was no judicial error in the case of "Padilla Echeverry, José Gilbardo and others for violation of Law No. 23.737." 32. In its second to last submission, dated July 3, 2000, the State reported to the Commission that, on April 26, 2000, it had been notified of the action brought by the petitioner before the 10th National Court of Federal Administrative Disputes of Buenos Aires, claiming payment of 6