recalls that, to date, those responsible have not been punished. In this regard, the decision to acquit the defendants for the "homicide" of the alleged victim was overruled on February 27, 2019 and, consequently, the proceedings were handed back down "for consideration." Likewise, as confirmed by the resolution issued in September 2019 by the Oral Court, on July 5 of the same year, the Federal Chamber of Criminal Cassation declared “[inadmissible] the extraordinary appeal” filed by the defense of the accused whose acquittal was annulled. In response, the defense filed a motion for reconsideration of dismissal of appeal "for denial of the federal extraordinary appeal," which, since then and as of the date this Judgment is issued, awaits a hearing before and resolution by the Supreme Court. In view of the failure to resolve the appeal, the Oral Court ruled that it still "should not" proceed as ordered by the Chamber. 203 185. In this regard, this Court notes that the intention of the motion for reconsideration of dismissal of appeal is not to examine the complexity of the facts under investigation or the joinder of the cases into a single process, but instead is to pursue a hearing and a decision as to specific grounds of appeal of the denial of a remedy by the lower court. In this regard, expert witness Pablo Parenti stated that “one of the main problems” faced by the trial system in the current situation is “excessive delay, especially in the appeals process.” 204 In short, this Court finds that, given the content of the remedy sought, the delay of more than two years to process an appeal that, in the opinion of the domestic courts, hinders prosecution of acts of such magnitude as seen in this case, exceeds the realm of what could be considered reasonable. 186. It should be added that the State also tried to justify the lack of punishment for the facts committed against Julien Cáceres on foreign authorities’ refusal to grant the request to extradite the persons who were to be charged. This argument is based on the inter-State cooperation needed to fight impunity (supra para. 121); nevertheless, the Court recalls that the decisions handed down in cases 2261 and 2390, failed to clarify or punish the serious acts committed against Julien Cáceres, and notes that they were unrelated to the denial of extradition. The State’s international responsibility is therefore beyond dispute. 187. However, the Court considers it necessary to draw a connection to another element to assess the reasonableness of the time elapsed. The Court recalls that the facts of the case began as a result of the operation of September 26, 1976. In 1986 and 1987, Laws No. 23,492 and 23,521 were enacted, which prevented the prosecution and punishment of "crimes committed during the dictatorship," with the exception of the crimes of "abduction and concealment of minors" and “replacement of civil status.” The situation deriving from these laws lasted until March 6, 2001, when a federal judge declared them invalid, 205 a decision that was upheld on November 9, 2001. 206 In 2003, Law No. 25,779 declared both laws “null and void.” Lastly in a judgment handed down on June 14, 2005, in the case known as “Simón," the Supreme Court of the Nation declared Law 25,779 to be “valid” and Laws 23,492 and 23,521 “to have no effect,” along with “any act based on them that could impede the progress of the proceedings […] or the prosecution and eventual conviction of those responsible, or in Cf. Resolution issued by Federal Oral Criminal Court No. 1 in September 2019, case No. 2261 (evidence file, volume IV, annex VII to the pleadings and motions brief, folios 2745, 2746, and 2750). 204 Cf. Written expert opinion rendered by Pablo Parenti (evidence file, volume XI, written expert opinions, folios 16930). 205 Cf. Resolution issued by the National Federal Criminal and Correctional Court No. 4 on March 6, 2001, case 8686/2000, “Simón, Julio, Del Cerro, Juan Antonio regarding abduction of minors under 10 years of age,” in which, explicitly invoking the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court, it was stated that “[t]he amnesty decree […] affected […] the right of the victim and their relatives to obtain justice through effective remedies against those responsible for violating their human rights.” 206 Cf. Resolutions issued by Chamber II of the National Federal Criminal and Correctional Chamber on November 9, 2001, case 17,889, “Simón, Julio appeal,” and case 17,890, “Del Cerro, J. A. regarding complaint.” In these decisions, the Chamber, citing the Barrios Altos case, found that “the State cannot invoke internal difficulties to evade its duty to investigate the facts with which it violated the [American] Convention and punish those who are criminally responsible for them." 203 49