pages with parallel administrative and criminal proceedings, fraud committed over a three-year period in 14 different units of the Air Force, large sums of money and a complicated, highly technical accounting investigation. The State argues that the principal defendant, then-Vice Commodore Galluzzi, fled the country and only presented himself before the authorities on April 1, 1982, thereby delaying the investigation. Additionally, the State emphasizes that delay in the trial stage was largely attributable to actions brought by the defendants, which had the effect of interrupting the proceedings. It further contends that, as the alleged victims had attempted to seek the benefit of the expiration of the statute of limitations on the crimes, the delay in the trial could not be imputed to the State. 36. In response to the petitioners’ claims that the defendants lacked the assistance of a lawyer at trial in violation of Article 8, the State indicates that neither the judges nor the defenders in military proceedings were required to be lawyers. However, the State points out that the armed forces includes a Cuerpo de Auditores, comprised of military personnel who graduated in law prior to joining the military. Defendants in military proceedings were free to designate members of this Corps as their defenders, and in numerous cases had done so. The State further indicates that when such defendants chose a command official to handle their defense, it was a common practice for such officials to be advised by a member of the Cuerpo de Auditores in all presentations. Moreover, the State notes, when the proceedings passed to the appeals stage, the defendants were either represented by their own attorneys or qualified public defenders. 37. In relation to the assertion that the defendants were compelled to declare against their own interests in violation of Article 8, the State argues first, that the defendants’ initial statements were taken prior to the entry into force of the American Convention with respect to Argentina, and that because the American Declaration does not contain a similar provision this claim is inadmissible. The State maintains that the statements were duly taken in accordance with the requirements of the Code of Military Justice. According to the provisions of the Code then in effect, in taking such statements, an oath or promise to tell the truth could not be required, but it could be strongly encouraged. Moreover, the State adds, the defendants were not convicted solely on the basis of their statements, but on the basis of other evidence as well. 38. In relation to the claims under Article 8 to the effect that the alleged victims were unable to appeal their sentences before a higher court, the State maintains that the National Chamber of Criminal Casation processed the defendants’ appeal and pronounced upon it as a court of second instance. In this sense, the State cites Article 7 of Law 24.050, which established the competence of the National Chamber of Criminal Casation, and directed that one of its chambers hear the recourses set forth in Article 445 bis of the Code of Military Justice. 39. In relation to the violations alleged with respect to equal protection of the law under Article 24 of the American Convention, the State affirms that not all differences of treatment are violative of this principle, but only those that lack a reasonable and objective justification. In the present case, the alleged victims were members of the military, committed the crimes for which they were prosecuted in military installations and against the interests of the military. The application of the Code of Military Justice therefore gave rise to no violation of the principle of equal protection. 40. With respect to alleged violations of the right to judicial protection set forth in Article 25 of the American Convention, the State argues that the proceedings complied with the due process norms set forth in the military justice system. The State reiterates that the military justice system may not be measured against the civilian justice system, as the petitioners wish to do, because the procedures and interests concerned are necessarily distinct. The State rejects any claims to the effect that the appeals before the National Chamber of Criminal Casation or Supreme Court were not adequately dealt with, noting that the Chamber in fact upheld certain claims raised by the defendants. 41. With respect to the petitioners’ claims that the Supreme Council refused to order the production of or accept certain relevant evidence, and that this was violative of basic judicial 7