b.2 Remedy of appeal, second instance decision and remedy of complaint 56. Mr. Jenkins’ defense counsel filed a remedy of appeal before Chamber III of the National Appellate Chamber for Federal Administrative Disputes (hereinafter “Chamber III”) against the judgment of Federal Administrative Court No. 10.52 On March 25, 2008, Chamber III declared that the remedy of appeal filed by Mr. Jenkins was void because, “when filing it, no arguments had been submitted regarding the reasons given by the first instance judge in her decision, and there were no grounds for departing from the objective opinion in the judgment appealed.”53 Chamber III also considered that, when Mr. Jenkins’ deprivation of liberty was ordered, there was sufficient evidence to give rise to a legitimate suspicion as to his criminal responsibility.54 The Chamber concluded that “the acquittal was not handed down owing to his ‘evident innocence’ […]; rather, the insufficiency of probative elements provided during the proceedings […] led the prosecutor to request the acquittal of Jenkins and the Oral Court to rule in accordance with this request.”55 57. Subsequently, Mr. Jenkins filed an application for judicial review of the judgment of Chamber III of the National Appellate Chamber of March 25, 2008, before the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation. On March 17, 2009, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation delivered judgment denying this remedy because: (i) the complaint had exceeded the extension established by the regulatory provisions; (ii) the complaint failed to meet its main requirement of refuting the grounds for the decision it was contesting – principally the assertion that there were no differences between the content of cassette No. 40 and its transcription; moreover, this piece of evidence was not the only one taken into account to order the preventive detention, and (iii) by applying for judicial review, Mr. Jenkins was seeking for the court to examine and decide circumstances and petitions that bore no relationship to the purpose of the litis.56 VIII MERITS 58. This case relates to the alleged arbitrary deprivation of liberty of Mr. Jenkins from June 8, 1994, until November 13, 1997, in the context of a criminal case in which he was accused of the offenses of illicit trafficking in drugs and unlawful association, of which he was ultimately acquitted. The case also relates to the alleged unreasonable duration of the civil action for damages filed by Mr. Jenkins following his exoneration. 59. Based on the arguments of the parties and the Commission, in the instant case the Court will examine: (i) the arrest and prolongation of the preventive detention of Mr. Jenkins in alleged non- Mr. Jenkins argued that: (i) during the criminal case against him, the investigating judge and the prosecutors used an inexistent piece of evidence to order his preventive detention and commit him to oral trial; (ii) the judgment of Federal Oral Criminal Court No. 6 ordered the investigation of a probable offense, which was then glossed over and not investigated; (iii) the principle of innocence was violated owing to the time that he remained detained, which anticipated that he would be sentenced to prison, with the aggravating factor that the State incurred in a crass judicial and administrative error; (iv) his subjection to preventive detention for more than two years constituted an unlawful sentence that should be redressed, and (v) due to the application of the exception established in Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention on Human Rights, the National State had exhausted the possibility of defense and the whole process under the domestic jurisdiction had to be conducted by the person who had the authority of iuris dictio of the National State. Cf. Judgment of Chamber III of the National Appellate Chamber for Federal Administrative Disputes, of March 25, 2008 (evidence file, folio 4664). 52 Cf. Judgment of Chamber III of the National Appellate Chamber for Federal Administrative Disputes, of March 25, 2008 (evidence file, folios 4668 and 4669). 53 Cf. Judgment of Chamber III of the National Appellate Chamber for Federal Administrative Disputes, of March 25, 2008 (evidence file, folios 4674 and 4675). 54 Cf. Judgment of Chamber III of the National Appellate Chamber for Federal Administrative Disputes, of March 25, 2008 (evidence file, folios 4677 and 4678). 55 56 Cf. Decision of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation of March 17, 2009 (evidence file, folio 4684 to 4686). 16