26 84. From July 25 to 30, 1989, the National Criminal and Correctional Appeals Chamber of the Federal Capital ordered release of the alleged victims who had been in detention since June 5, 1989, after they were convicted by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces. 98 85. On November 1499 a complaint of judicial error was submitted as grounds for appeal. Under the terms of article 445 bis, subparagraphs 1, 2 clauses (a) and (b) and 4 of the Code of Military Justice, a pleading was filed to challenge the constitutionality of article 237 of the Code of Military Justice100 and secondarily, it was argued that the criminal action had lapsed under the statute of limitations.101 86. On April 23, 1990, the National Appeals Chamber admitted the appeals against the judgment handed down by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces. 102 87. On December 5, 1990, the National Appeals Chamber held that the criminal action for the crimes classified as military fraud and forgery had lapsed under the statute of limitations, but denied the statute of limitations for the crime of conspiracy to commit a crime, codified in article 210 of the Criminal Code. It held that the nullifications would be considered in the discussion of the merits.103 88. On July 30, 1991, the Supreme Court considered a motion by the prosecutor of the Chamber challenging the decision to invoke the statute of limitations and decided to reverse the decision of the National Appeals Chamber and set aside its application of the statute of limitations.104 89. Law 24.050 was enacted on December 6, 1991, changing the composition of the judiciary (published in the Official Gazette on January 7, 1992). 98 Release order for Mr. Argüelles, July 26, 1989 (evidence file, folio 2239). Also see merits file, folios 1912, 2194, 2195 and 2269. 99 Judgment by the National Chamber of Criminal Cassation, April 3, 1995 (evidence file, folio 2057). 100 Code of Military Justice (Law 14.029, July 4, 1951): “ARTICLE 237. - Statements shall be taken separately from each of the persons implicated in the crime or offense, and declarants cannot be required to swear or promise to tell the truth, although they can be urged to do so” (evidence file, folio 12835). 101 Brief of the complaint of judicial error lodged by the attorney of Mr. Giordano, Mr. Tomasek, Mr. Mercau, Mr. Arancibia, Mr. Argüelles, Mr. Cardozo, Mr. Muñoz and Mr. Candurra (evidence file, folios 1110 to 1245). 102 Admissibility of remedies lodged against the judgment of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, April 23, 1990 (evidence file, folios 7998 to 8035). 103 Considerations of the grounds for the finding by the National Criminal and Correctional Appeals Chamber of the Federal Capital, December 13, 1990 (evidence file, folio 1331 to 1336). The court held, “[a]lthough it is a universally accepted principle that the mere change of classification does not per se worsen of the situation of the appellant, there is no question that in this particular case, the issue at hand is the applicability of a system whose statute of limitations is more severe, under which the correctional penalty would remain in effect, and the change of legal subordination which has been under discussion would bring certain harm which in turn would nullify the argument of absence of fiscal injury […] Although article 601 of the Code of Military Justice makes reference to the time periods set in the Criminal Code, […] it would be wrong to lose sight of the fact that the text of the law refers exclusively to common crimes, which as has been said, cannot be applied here to military fraud.” The court added that the Code of Military Justice itself, in article 2, “disallows any application of criminal provisions different from those of the military code in cases not so stipulated in the code,” which means that the Criminal Code cannot be applied because there is no specific authorization to do so, and “it yields to the specialized precepts of the military system of laws.” It did accept, however, that the Supreme Court in earlier judgments had held that the crime of fraud under the Code of Military Justice “does not differ essentially from that codified in article 261 of the Criminal Code;” certified by the Registrar of the National Criminal and Correctional Appeals Chamber of the Federal Capital, December 28, 1990 (evidence file, folio 1338). 104 Decision by the Supreme Court, July 30, 1991 (evidence file, folio 469).