Banco” secret camp. They were also given a phone number where they had to make check-in calls.27 The supervised release ended on April 30, 1983. C. The procedure for requesting reparations for Mr. Almeida domestically 35. On February 21, 1995, Mr. Almeida filed a request for the benefits provided for under Law 24,043.28 After the Secretariat on Human and Social Rights confirmed he met the legal requirements,29 the Ministry on Interior Affairs issued resolution 2638/96 of October 3, 1996, recognizing Mr. Almeida's right to compensation for 54 days of illegal detention.30 Mr. Almeida was notified of this resolution on October 8, 1996.31 36. On November 6, 1996, Mr. Almeida filed a motion of appeal before the Ministry of Interior Affairs. He argued that resolution 2638/96 did not, for the calculation of his compensation, take into account the 1795 days during which he was kept under a form of supervised release regime.32 On March 25, 1999, the National Federal Contentious Administrative Chamber upheld the ruling under appeal, finding that: The plaintiff’s claim that the detention period should be counted as ending on April 30, 1983, because up until that date following his release on July 27, 1978, he had to report to “Colores,” Javier, and Julián the Turk is dismissed because, irrespective of the truth of his claims, his situation is not provided for under Law 21,650,33 to which, Law 24,043 implicitly refers where it stipulates that release under surveillance should not be construed as termination of the measure restricting freedom and, as a result, authorizes extension of the period of detention subject to compensation until the achievement of full freedom. 34 37. On April 22, 1999, Mr. Almeida filed a special appeal of the resolution of the National Federal Contentious Administrative Chamber. Specifically, he argued that the Supreme Court of Justice had issued a broader interpretation of what should be considered included in the concept of “supervised release.”35 To plead his case, he referred to other casefiles in which the Court had agreed in similar cases. Cf. Testimony given before the Criminal Court by Rufino Jorge Almeida on March 13, 1987, in the case of "Suarez Mason, Carlos Guillermo et al. regarding homicide and illegal deprivation of liberty,” (evidence file, folio 14). 27 Cf. Copy of the request submitted to the National Human Rights Office on February 21, 1995, by Mr. Rufino Jorge Almeida (evidence file, folios 657 and 658). 28 29 Cf. Ruling of the Subsecretary of Human and Social Rights of July 3, 1996 (evidence file, folios 664 and 665). 30 Cf. Resolution of the Ministry of Interior Affairs of October 3, 1996, No. 2638/96 (evidence file, folios 669 to 671). 31 Cf. Notification document dated October 8, 1996 (evidence file, folios 676 to 678). Cf. Motion of appeal and request for forwarding of proceedings to the National Federal Contentious Administrative Chamber, filed before the Ministry of Interior Affairs by Rufino Jorge Almeida on November 6, 1996 (evidence file, folios 362 to 368). 32 Institutional Act of September 1, 1977, referring to the authorities granted and the rights enshrined by article 23 of the Constitution on Martial Law and establishing that arrest ordered by the President of the Nation can be served in a criminal facility or jail; in a military facility; or by security forces, in whatever location is selected for each case, placing limits on the movement of the arrestee, under a regime of supervised release, and in the arrestee’s own home. Law 21,650 established the regulations for this Act, specifically the conditions for supervised release (article 5), that is, that the presidential decree ordering this form of compliance with the arrest shall indicate: a) the location where the arrestee is to remain; b) the geographical limits of the arrestee’s movement; and c) the military, security or police authority before which the arrestee must comply with the measure. 33 Resolution issued by the National Federal Contentious Administrative Chamber of March 25, 1999 (evidence file, folio 371). 34 Cf. Appeal filed before the Supreme Court of the Nation by Jorge Rufino Almeida on April 22, 1999 (evidence file, folio 375). 35 11