42. On June 8, 1994, based on an order issued by National Federal Criminal and Correctional Court No. 9 in the context of criminal case No. 73 entitled “Padilla Echeverry, José Gildardo and Others ref/ Violation of Law No. 23,737” Mr. Jenkins was arrested, accused of the offenses of illicit trafficking in drugs and unlawful association.21 43. On June 29, 1994, National Federal Criminal and Correctional Court No. 6 ordered the prosecution of Mr. Jenkins considering that he was the “responsible perpetrator” of the commerce, transportation, distribution and storage of narcotic drugs.22 It also ordered the embargo of his assets and/or cash up to the value of five hundred thousand pesos, and decided to convert his arrest into preventive detention.23 a.2 Remedies filed against incarceration 44. While in preventive detention, Mr. Jenkins filed diverse remedies to obtain his release. First, Mr. Jenkins’ defense counsel filed a joint action of unconstitutionality and request for release before Federal Oral Criminal Court No. 6. In this action, they indicated that article 10 of Law No. 24,390 – which established the elimination of maximum limits of preventive detention for those individuals accused of illicit drug-trafficking offenses24 – was unconstitutional because: (i) the concept of a reasonable duration of preventive detention should be subject to the gravity of the offense, and (ii) there were more serious offenses, such as murder, for which release was admitted.25 The defense counsel added that “the said article also violate[d] art. 16 of the National Constitution which stipulate[d] that all citizens are equal before the law, because the article in question ma[de] an arbitrary exception […], thus creating manifest inequalities in the treatment of identical procedural situations.”26 45. On October 2, 1996, Federal Oral Criminal Court No. 6 decided to deny the action of unconstitutionality. That court gave the following reasons: […] The exclusion from the provisions of the first to seventh articles of Law 24,390 established in the tenth article of this law […] does not appear unreasonable, given that the conducts described in the said article have warranted special treatment by the competent State organs (in Cf. Request of the National Federal Criminal and Correctional Court No. 9 of June 7, 1994 (evidence file, folios 5755 and 5756). 21 Cf. Resolution of preliminary investigation No. 1030 ordering the prosecution of Mr. Jenkins and others of June 29, 1994 (evidence file, folio 5865 and 5868). 22 Cf. Resolution of preliminary investigation No. 1030 ordering the prosecution of Mr. Jenkins and others of June 29, 1994 (evidence file, folio 5869). 23 The said Law No. 24,390 regulated the maximum durations of preventive detention and the exceptions. Thus, article 1 of this law established the following: 24 Preventive detention may not exceed two years. However, when the number of offenses attributed to the accused or the evident complexity of the case has prevented concluding the proceedings within this time frame, it may be prolonged for one more year by a reasoned decision that shall be notified immediately to the corresponding appellate court for its review. Meanwhile, article 10 of the law established an exception to this maximum limit, indicating that this was not applicable in those cases in which the individual was accused of a drug-trafficking offense, and establishing the following: Those accused of the offense established in article 7 of Law 23,737 and those to whom the aggravating factors established in article 11 of that same law are applicable are expressly excluded from the terms of this current law. Cf. Action of unconstitutionality filed by Miguel Ángel Buigo and Marcelo Roberto Buigo before Oral Court No.6 (evidence file, folios 4537 to 4540). 25 Cf. Action of unconstitutionality filed by Miguel Ángel Buigo and Marcelo Roberto Buigo before Oral Court No. 6 (evidence file, folio 4540). 26 12