indicates that he went, unaccompanied by counsel, with the objective of collaborating in the investigation. He was detained that same day, and held until August 12, 1980 when he was released on his own recognizance. 17. While he does not invoke these facts as violations before the Commission, he nonetheless notes that during those two weeks he was brutally tortured. He reports having been held incommunicado for five days in the Central Department of the Federal Police in Buenos Aires, and questioned in the National Bank. He alleges that he was threatened with death to pressure him to reveal the whereabouts of funds that he knew nothing about. He states that he was beaten, hooded and tortured with the application of electricity. He indicates that when he was finally taken before a magistrate, he wanted to denounce what had happened, but a court official warned him that, given the political circumstances, this would place his life at risk and that it was better to say nothing. 18. Mr. Grande reportedly remained under criminal prosecution from August 29, 1980 until the charges against him were definitively dismissed on January 24, 1989. He indicates that the definitive dismissal of the charges was based on the nullification of the searches of the bank and seizure of documents by the Federal Chamber of Appeals, which determined that those actions had been carried out absent written judicial authorization and in violation of the Constitution. 19. Mr. Grande indicates that he then filed an action for damages against the State arising from his allegedly unjust detention and prosecution On April 14, 1992, the judge at first instance of the Federal Administrative Contentious Court ordered that the State pay Mr. Grande damages in the amount of $150,000 plus interest and costs. He reports that this decision was based on the finding that the irregular actions of the Federal Police had led to deficiencies in the administration of justice. He notes that the resulting damages to his psychological state were proven in this process through various means including the opinion of the court’s own medical expert. 20. Both the State and Mr. Grande appealed that decision. On April 6, 1993, the National Chamber of Appeals in Federal Administrative and Contentious Matters revoked the sentence issued at first instance. The appellate chamber opined that, first, State responsibility could only be established in the case of an “evident, manifest and unquestionable” judicial error, and that this had not been demonstrated in Mr. Grande’s case. Mr. Grande maintains that the error on which his prosecution was based in fact met that standard, and that the process against him was characterized by its very irregularity. Second, the appellate chamber decided that Mr. Grande had not utilized all the available legal remedies to obtain an immediate remedy for the wrongs he claimed. He indicates that any limitations he may have experienced in his capacity to pursue other legal remedies were due precisely to the psychological damage sustained as a result of his treatment. Further, he notes that the Chamber of Appeals arrived at its determination that there had been no manifest error in the process against him by pointing out that the definitive dismissal was based not on Mr. Grande’s innocence but on the impossibility of producing new evidence against him. 21. He reports having filed a recurso extraordinario before the National Chamber of Appeals seeking review of its decision. Following the denial of that recourse, he presented a recurso de queja before the Supreme Court of Justice. The latter was rejected as inadmissible on April 12, 1994, and he reports having received notification on May 3, 1994. He maintains that it was at this point that he exhausted domestic remedies. 22. The petitioners contend that Mr. Grande was subjected to an illegal and arbitrary detention and prosecution at the hands of the military dictatorship, which charged him with “economic subversion.” They maintain that the facts alleged constitute violations of Article 8 of the American Convention, particularly concerning the due process guarantees required during criminal proceedings, and Article 10, concerning the right to receive compensation in the event of being sentenced by a final judgment through a miscarriage of justice. 4