Chamber in the ‘Gerez’ case and, since the arguments set forth in the said remedy did not affect the doctrine established in the said rulings, the processing of the remedy became unnecessary […]; moreover, the appellant [had] not provided reasons that call[ed] into question the applicability of that ruling or provided new arguments that m[ight] lead to a modification of the criteria established therein.”35 50. On April 28, 1997, Mr. Jenkins’ defense counsel filed a remedy of complaint owing to the denial of the special remedy filed before the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation36 in which, among other matters, they reiterated that the exclusions established by article 10 of Law No. 24,390 were unreasonable.37 Also, on April 29, 1997, Mr. Jenkins filed a remedy entitled “guarantee of liberty” requesting, inter alia, release on bail,38 which was rejected on May 14, 1997.39 In addition, on June 27, 1997, Mr. Jenkins filed an expansion of the remedy of complaint before the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation.40 On September 25, 1997, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation rejected that remedy.41 On October 27, 1997, Mr. Jenkins filed an appeal for reconsideration in extremis against the final judgment of September 25, 1997.42 The Court has no information on the result of the appeal. 51. In addition to the aforementioned remedies, Mr. Jenkins’ wife, Leticia Pironelli, filed a complaint before the Ombudsman of the city of Buenos Aires “based on the prolonged detention of her husband, being prosecuted in case No. 73 on the docket of Federal Oral Criminal Court No. 6 of this city.”43 On June 23, 1997, the Ombudsman issued his decision on the complaint in which he decided “to urge Federal Oral Criminal Court No. 6 of the Federal Capital to order the release, under the bail conditions that it considered appropriate, of Gabriel Óscar Jenkins and of those who, like him, it has not been possible to try within a reasonable time, thus ending their current deprivation of liberty in conditions of inhumane overcrowding in a prison initially built to accommodate offenders or persons subject to legal proceedings of a reasonable duration.”44 a.3 Acquittal of Mr. Jenkins 52. On November 19, 1997, during the hearing of the criminal proceedings against Mr. Jenkins and other defendants, the prosecutor requested that he be acquitted of any wrongdoing in relation to the offense of which he was accused, considering that the evidence collected with regard to Mr. Jenkins Cf. Decision of Chamber I of the National Criminal Cassation Chamber denying the special remedy, of April 10, 1997 (evidence file, folios 4589 and 4591). 35 Cf. Expansion of the remedy of complaint filed by Mr. Jenkins owing to the denial of the special remedy, of June 22, 1997 (evidence file, folio 4593). 36 37 Cf. Remedy of complaint owing to the denial of the special remedy, of April 28, 1997 (evidence file, folio 4029). Cf. Appeal requesting guarantee of liberty and freedom from prosecution of April 29, 1997 (evidence file, folio 4689). Mr. Jenkins argued, inter alia, that: (i) it had been presumed that the accused had committed an offense; (ii) there was no risk of flight or the perpetration of new offenses; (iii) there was no need to investigate or the possibility of collusion; (iv) there was no risk of the exercise of pressure on witnesses, and (v) no need to preserve public order. Cf. Appeal requesting guarantee of liberty and freedom from prosecution of April 29, 1997 (evidence file, folios 4690 to 4694). 38 Cf. Expansion of the remedy of complaint filed by Mr. Jenkins against the denial of the special remedy, of June 22, 1997 (evidence file, folio 4594). 39 Cf. Expansion of the remedy of complaint filed by Mr. Jenkins against the denial of the special remedy, of June 22, 1997 (evidence file, folios 4593 to 4621). 40 Cf. Judgment of Chamber III of the National Appellate Chamber for Federal Administrative Disputes, of March 25, 2008 (evidence file, folio 4670). 41 Cf. Judgment of Chamber III of the National Appellate Chamber for Federal Administrative Disputes, of March 25, 2008 (evidence file, folio 4670) and appeal for reconsideration in extremis of October 27, 1997 (evidence file, folios 4712 to 4722). 42 43 Cf. Decision No.935/97 of the Ombudsman of the city of Buenos Aires of June 23, 1997 (evidence file, folio 4530). 44 Cf. Decision No.935/97 of the Ombudsman of the city of Buenos Aires of June 23, 1997 (evidence file, folio 4534). 14