this specific case the National Congress) by threatening to impose extremely high penalties on the offenses indicated ‘supra,’ clearly demonstrating the interest in prosecuting that type of criminal organization – and its members – dedicated to the trafficking of narcotic substances, as a result of the obligations assumed by the Nation on signing the Vienna Convention on the elimination of the trafficking in those substances. […] [I]t is consequent with this gravity and the important interests that such conducts affect, that those subject to prosecution for the perpetration of any such offenses are barred from the possibility of enjoying the right to conditional release while their cases are being processed in order to ensure their presence during the substantiation of those offenses.27 46. The Oral Court also indicated that the article in question was compatible with Article 7(5) of the American Convention “because the Convention requires that everyone be tried or released within a ‘reasonable time,’ but does not prevent each State from adapting this time based on criminal policy criteria that, essentially, are related to reasons of public interest.”28 The Oral Court added that the exclusion from the application of Law No. 24,390 did not entail the derogation of the principles of individual liberty and the presumption of innocence, nor did it entail a violation of the principle of equality before the law.29 47. Mr. Jenkins’ defense counsel then filed an action of unconstitutionality before the National Criminal Cassation Chamber against the decision of Federal Oral Court No. 6. The action filed indicated that the decision had been arbitrary because it had not taken into account the arguments of the defense, and merely replicated a previous ruling of the same court. 30 They also reiterated that the prohibition of release for individuals accused of offenses linked to illicit trafficking in drugs was “manifestly unreasonable”31 and that the concept of a reasonable time should be subject to the gravity of the offense.32 48. On February 24, 1997, Chamber I of the National Criminal Cassation Chamber decided to reject the action of unconstitutionality and confirmed the decision denying Mr. Jenkins’ release. Chamber I substantiated its decision by arguing that the appealed decision was similar to that in other cases in which it had examined a comparable situation, and made a comprehensive referral to the reasoning in those cases.33 49. On February 28, 1997, Mr. Jenkins’ defense counsel filed a special remedy against the decision of Chamber I of the National Criminal Cassation Chamber denying the action of unconstitutionality. 34 On April 10, 1997, the National Criminal Cassation Chamber declared the special remedy filed by Mr. Jenkins’ defense counsel inadmissible because the matter submitted to the consideration of that Chamber had “already [been] decided by the Supreme Court in the ‘Arana’ precedent and by this Cf. Decision of Oral Court No. 6 of October 2, 1996, dismissing the action of unconstitutionality (evidence file, folios 4549 and 4550). 27 28 4551). 29 Cf. Decision of Oral Court No. 6 of October 2, 1996, dismissing the action of unconstitutionality (evidence file, folio Cf. Decision of Oral Court No. 6 of October 2, 1996, dismissing the action of unconstitutionality (evidence file, folio 4552). Cf. Action of unconstitutionality filed by Miguel Ángel Buigo and Marcelo Roberto Buigo against the decision of October 2, 1996, issued by Oral Court No. 6 (evidence file, folio 4557). 30 Cf. Action of unconstitutionality filed by Miguel Ángel Buigo and Marcelo Roberto Buigo against the decision of October 2, 1996, issued by Oral Court No. 6 (evidence file, folios 4559 to 4563). 31 Cf. Action of unconstitutionality filed by Miguel Ángel Buigo and Marcelo Roberto Buigo against the decision of October 2, 1996, issued by Oral Court No. 6 (evidence file, folio 4561). 32 Cf. Decision of Chamber I of the National Criminal Cassation Chamber denying the action of unconstitutionality, of February 24, 1997 (evidence file, folios 4569 to 4570). 33 Cf. Special remedy filed by the defense of Gabriel Oscar Jenkins against the decision of Chamber I of the National Criminal Cassation Chamber of February 28, 1997 (evidence file, folios 4572 to 4586). 34 13