27 90. The National Appeals Chamber decided on October 6, 1992 to postpone the hearing required under article 445 bis subparagraph 5 of the Code of Military Justice, 105 which stipulated that once motions were admitted, a hearing should be scheduled within a period not to exceed 30 days to air arguments on the complaints of judicial error and production of evidence and to decide whether the judgment being challenged is upheld, voided or reversed.106 91. On September 16, 1993 the National Appeals Chamber disqualified itself from continuing to hear the case. The National Chamber of Criminal Cassation received the case files on November 16, 1993, declined to exercise competence and returned the case to the originating court.107 The National Appeals Chamber upheld its opinion and forwarded the case files to the Supreme Court, which ruled that the National Chamber of Criminal Cassation was the competent body to proceed with the remedy set forth in article 445 bis.108 92. On June 7, 1994 the prosecutor of the National Chamber of Criminal Cassation claimed that the order of admissibility of appeals against the judgment by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces had expired, arguing that over four years had elapsed since it had been declared on April 23, 1990, “and nothing has been done to comply with the strict mandate given in subparagraph 5 in fine of art. 445 bis.” The prosecutor added, “...the failure to respect [the] deadlines – a requirement of action, not of word – entails violation of due process, not only for unreasonable delays in the trial […] but also for discrediting evidence that could have been adduced,” and therefore it requested that the order of admissibility be reversed with the exception of evidence that had already been supplied and joined to the cases. 109 105 Decision by the National Criminal and Correctional Appeals Chamber, October 6, 1992 (evidence file, folios 846 to 849). The Chamber said in its decision that one of the reasons why the deadline could not easily be met was that “as a result of the events of December 3, 1990, the President issued executive orders 2540/90 and 2632/90, ordering the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces to hold separate trials for the groups of servicemen involved in this matter, and by obligation, the judgments would be reviewed by this Chamber. This meant several cases would be tried involving different numbers of accused, and the hearings would take several days. As a result, “this Chamber now finds itself materially and legally (principle of continuity) unable to hold two trials jointly, and it gave priority to processing those cases that, unlike the instant case, involve persons being held in detention The volume and complexity of these trials are compounded by the fact that the number of regular actions has grown by 60 percent as a result of narcotics law 23.737 that gave jurisdiction to this chamber. […] In addition, this Chamber may be subject to changes in its membership due to the reform of the Criminal Procedural Code introduced under Law 23.9841.” 106 Article 445 bis, subparagraphs 6 and 8 of the Code of Military Justice (Law 14.029, July 4, 1951) (evidence file, folio 13026). 107 Decision by the National Chamber of Criminal Cassation, November 16, 1993 (evidence file, folios 1340 to 1346). It said, “Law 24.121, art. 12[,] disallows altering the judicial system for remedies already in process with the National Criminal and Correctional Appeals Chamber of the Federal Capital through September, 1993 […]. The exceedingly protracted – in terms of both time and development – progress of resolving this remedy before said chamber should have led the court to consider that the attitude it is now taking – a strike against continuity of cognizance – would culminate in a sterile debate whose predictable and irreparable outcome would be to delay the process even further. Additionally, this delay would ultimately be contrary to the essential principles of procedural economy, undermining the right of the accused to obtain a decision that, respecting their position before the law and society, would put an end, as quickly as possible, to the state of indecision and confinement inherent to any criminal proceedings.” 108 109 Judgment by the National Chamber of Criminal Cassation, April 3, 1995 (evidence file, folios 2295 and 2296). Pleading for expiration of the order of admissibility by the prosecutor of the National Chamber of Criminal Cassation (evidence file, folios 2198 to 2202).