I INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE AND PURPOSE OF THE DISPUTE 1. The case submitted to the Court. On September 22, 2017, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) submitted to the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court the case of “Gabriel Oscar Jenkins” against the Argentine Republic (hereinafter “the State of Argentina,” “the Argentine State,” “the State” or “Argentina”). According to the Commission, the case relates to the alleged arbitrary deprivation of liberty of Mr. Jenkins from June 8, 1994, until November 13, 1997, in the context of the case known as “Padilla Echeverry et al.” in Federal Oral Criminal Court No. 6 for the offenses of illicit trafficking in drugs and unlawful association of which he was ultimately acquitted. In addition, the Commission established that, while Mr. Jenkins was deprived of liberty, his preventive detention and the need to maintain it were never reviewed. It added that the judicial remedies filed did not enable a prompt and effective review of either the reasons for or the duration of the preventive detention. Lastly, the Commission concluded that the duration of the civil action for damages filed by Mr. Jenkins was unreasonable. 2. Procedure before the Commission. The procedure before the Commission was as follows: a) Petition. On September 9, 1997, the representative (hereinafter “the petitioner”) lodged the initial petition before the Commission. b) Admissibility Report. On October 13, 2004, the Commission adopted the Admissibility Report, in which it concluded that the petition was admissible. c) Merits Report. On December 6, 2016, the Commission adopted Merits Report No. 53/16, under Article 50 of the Convention (hereinafter also “the Merits Report” or “Report No. 53/16”), in which it reached a series of conclusions,1 and made several recommendations to the State. d) Notification to the State. The Merits Report was notified to the State on December 22, 2016. The Argentine State requested two extensions, which the Commission granted. In the interim, and based on the State’s indication of its willingness to comply with the recommendations made in the Merits Report, the Commission attended a working meeting between the parties. However, the parties failed to reach an agreement on compliance with the recommendations at that meeting. Subsequently, the State did not ask for a further extension so as to suspend the time limit indicated in Article 51 of the Convention, pursuant to the provisions of Article 46 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure. 3. Submission to the Court. On September 22, 2017, the Commission submitted to the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court all the facts and human rights violations described in Report No. 53/16 “in view of the need to obtain justice for the victim in this specific case.”2 The Court notes that more than twenty years passed between the lodging of the initial petition before the Commission and the submission of the case to the Court. The Court emphasizes that the Commission should always ensure the reasonableness of the time taken to process petitions. However, within certain reasonable timespans, some omissions or delays in complying with the Commission’s procedures may be The Commission concluded that the State of Argentina was responsible for “the violation of the rights to personal liberty and to judicial guarantees, to equality before the law and to judicial protection established in Articles 7(1), 7(3), 7(5), 7(6), 8(1), 8(2), 24 and 25(1) of the American Convention in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument to the detriment of Gabriel Oscar Jenkins, in relation to the preventive detention to which he was subjected, the legal framework applied, the remedies filed to achieve his release, and the claim for damages.” 1 The Commission appointed Commissioner Francisco Eguiguren and Executive Secretary Paulo Abrão as its delegates before the Court. It also appointed Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, then Deputy Executive Secretary, and the lawyers, Silvia Serrano Guzmán and Christian González Chacón, as legal advisers. 2 4