Complaint filed with the “National Secretariat of Human Rights.” b. Regarding the law 22. The petitioner maintains that the right to judicial protection, “was not respected,” in that in proceedings N 24519 he reported that he had been the victim of fraud but “I was tried for it [and I was tortured by the police personnel in charge].” He adds: in proceedings N 24079, for maltreatment, they allowed one of the accused to work in that court; they never carried out the preventive custody orders issued against the three police officers charged in the case; and, finally, the case was dismissed because of an ungrounded report by the Chamber’s prosecutor. Since my claims were not addressed by the Chamber, I filed an extraordinary remedy with the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, which was rejected by the intervening Court to which I had previously appealed without said appeal being resolved, on the grounds that the Court’s judges could not judge their own actions. [. . .] in proceedings N 25156, for threats made against my person, no procedural measure was ever ordered. In proceedings N 32989, for irregularities in proceedings N 24079, no conclusion was ever reached. [...] in proceedings 6269/96, for the disappearance of evidence, no procedural measure has been ordered. 23. With regard to the violation of the specific guarantee of being heard by the courts within a reasonable time, he reports that, “In 1988 I began the first of my suits. [...] Eight years have gone by [stated in December 1996] since the incidents that gave rise to the claim. Thus, the reasonable time has been violated, over and above the complexity of the matter.” 24. He also claims that, “I did not find in the domestic courts the simple and prompt recourse that would protect me against the actions of my respondents,” in violation of Article 25 of the Convention. In addition: “The frequent irregularities in this case constitute serious, exact, consistent, and adequate indications of the absence of judicial impartiality,” in breach of the terms of Article 8(1) of the Convention. 25. He maintains that in addition to the torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment he suffered during his police arrest: the attacks on my person did not end when I secured my freedom; instead, I have received threats from members of the Argentine Federal Police. In combination with the procedural irregularities, this has affected me not only physically, but also morally and psychologically, by placing me in a situation of defenselessness. 26. Finally, he claims, his arrest was arbitrary in nature. 27. To summarize, the petitioner’s allegations cover three general groups of supposed situations: (a) his arbitrary arrest on April 5, 1988, (b) the torture inflicted the following day, lack of due process and effective remedies for proving his claims, and (c) the threats made by members of the police. B. The State a. Regarding the facts 28. The State has not contradicted any of the petitioner’s allegations and, instead, focused its answers to the Commission on explaining the course of the judicial proceedings in this case. In its 4