was insufficient.45 That same day, the Federal Oral Criminal Court decided to order the immediate release of Mr. Jenkins as there was no reason for him to continue detained. 46 a.4 Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of June 15, 2010 53. On June 15, 2010, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation delivered judgment in case No. 5640 in which it established that article 10 of Law No. 24,390 was unconstitutional because it violated principles such as the presumption of innocence, personal liberty, equality, and a reasonable time for the duration of the proceedings.47 B. The civil action for damages filed by Mr. Jenkins b.1 Action for damages 54. On December 27, 1999, Mr. Jenkins filed an action for damages against the State and against the judge who had ordered his detention claiming one million eight hundred and fifty thousand pesos.48 The action was processed before Federal Administrative Court No. 10.49 55. On June 8, 2000, the action for damages was partially rejected by admitting the objection of lack of legitimacy to be sued in the case of the [investigating judge] because the withdrawal of his immunity had not been requested previously as established in articles 115 and 53 of the National Constitution. In the same decision, Federal Administrative Court No. 10 decided to continue processing the action with regard to the State. 50 On April 30, 2007, that court delivered judgment dismissing the action for damages, indicating that for the State to be found responsible for the prejudice caused to a person who experienced preventive detention and was then acquitted, it was necessary that: “(i) the acquittal had been handed down based on his evident innocence, and (ii) that the order of preventive detention, even if confirmed by the higher courts or ordered by them, was revealed to be unquestionably unfounded or arbitrary,” and this was not demonstrated by the corresponding case file. The court added that Mr. Jenkins’ acquittal had not been handed down owing to his evident innocence; rather, it was the insufficiency of probative elements concerning Mr. Jenkins’ conduct that led the prosecution to request his acquittal and the court to rule in this regard by a simple majority. It stressed that the remand order – which signified a provisional decision – was not revealed to be unquestionably unfounded or arbitrary because “the probative elements that, assessed as a whole within a context of indications and given the stage of the proceedings at which it was issued, convinced the judge to establish the preventive measure […] and the order to go to trial” were different.”51 45 Cf. Judgment of Federal Oral Criminal Court No. 6 of the Federal Capital of December 23, 1997 (evidence file, folio 4267). 46 Cf. Decision to release Mr. Jenkins, ordering his immediate liberation, of November 19, 1997 (evidence file, folio 5875). Cf. Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation in the case of Veliz, Linda Cristina ref/ case No. 5640, Application for judicial review, V. 210. XLI, of June 15, 2010 (evidence file, folios 5659 to 5661). 47 Cf. Action for damages filed by Mr. Jenkins against the State and against the judge who had ordered his detention, of December 27, 1999 (evidence file, folios 4820 to 4836). 48 49 Cf. Decision of Federal Administrative Court No. 10 of June 8, 2000 (evidence file, folio 4660). 50 Cf. Decision of Federal Administrative Court No. 10 of June 8, 2000 (evidence file, folios 4658 to 4660). Cf. Judgment of Federal Administrative Court No. 10 dismissing the action for damages filed by Mr. Jenkins, dated April 30, 2007 (evidence file, folios 5741 and 5742). 51 15