4 inquiries along with other government security agents. In this regard, it states that “as indicated in the charges from the Office of the Public Prosecutor, various acts of torture were in fact committed against several of the detained, including the petitioner” and since those detentions and possible torture were widespread, different cases were opened to investigate them, which were eventually joined based on their common elements. 15. The State reports that in one of the referenced cases three police officers were charged for the punishable act of “bodily injury in the performance of public duties,” in another case the former Minister of the Interior was charged for the punishable act of “torture,” and after the prosecution’s investigation all the accused were indicted for the indicated crimes, at which time the cases were joined. The State indicates that a series of “apparently dilatory” motions were filed against that decision, which resulted in the filing of constitutionality challenges before the Supreme Court of Justice. In addition, it alleges that pursuant to an “apparently malicious exercise of legal maneuvers by the defense attorneys for the accused, supported by a criminal system that still lacks infrastructure and is relatively new (Code of Criminal Procedure – Law No. 1286 promulgated on June 25, 1999 and in effect since March 1, 2000)” the preliminary hearing opened (assessing the merits of the indictment for purposes of referring the case for oral and public trial) on November 26, 2003, with the case file practically “extinct” in accordance with the provisions of Articles 25.3, 136, and 137 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2 16. Consequently, the State indicates that in the above-mentioned preliminary hearing on November 26, 2003, the Office of the Public Prosecutor and the attached complaint filed an objection the grounds of unconstitutionality, arguing that the referenced Articles 25.3, 136, and 137 of the Code of Criminal Procedure did not apply to the case. The State indicates that the Supreme Court ruled on this objection in a decision dated May 5, 2008, i.e., within a period of four years and eight months, ruling in favor of the arguments made by the Office of the Public Prosecutor and the alleged victim, declaring the challenged articles to be inapplicable. The State maintains that this decision eliminated the impediments to conducting another preliminary hearing where the indictment could be examined and the case could eventually be brought to trial. In summary, the State indicates that despite the years that have elapsed since the start of the process, and despite the case’s having been stuck in the Supreme Court of Justice for the indicated period of time, the finding of that Court reopened the doors for handling the case in a future oral trial with full guarantees. Thus, the State alleges a failure to exhaust domestic remedies. It maintains that the new situation created with the decision in the case, issued in its favor, allows the judicial system in Paraguay to search for the real truth, free of legalistic strictures allowing one to argue extinction of the action for any reason other than the deliberation of the case in a trial with full guarantees for the parties. 17. It adds that the Supreme Court’s decision of May 5, 2008 is evidence of the current ability to conduct the preliminary hearing and the oral and public trial and the latent possibility of filing appeals, cassation, and unconstitutionality remedies challenging any decisions that may be issued. 2 Article 25.3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure establishes in the relevant section that: “Criminal proceedings are discontinued: 3) due to expiration of the period provided in Article 136 of this Code.” For its part, the State indicates that Article 136 provided (currently that provision is amended by Law 2341/03): "Maximum Duration: Everyone shall be entitled to a decision in a reasonable period of time. Therefore, all proceedings shall have a maximum duration of three years from the first action taken in the proceeding (...).” Article 137 of the Code provides in the relevant section: “Effects. Once the period provided in the preceding article has expired, the judge or court, ex officio or at the request of one of the parties, shall declare the criminal action to have lapsed, in accordance with the provisions of this Code (...).”