and prove the existence of the said factors required by the Convention.74 78. In the instant case, the Court notes that Mr. Jenkins was arrested on June 8, 1994, based on an order issued by National Federal Criminal and Correctional Court No. 9 in the context of criminal case No. 73 entitled “Padilla Echeverry, José Gildardo and Others ref/ Violation of Law No. 23,737,” accused of the offenses of illicit trafficking in drugs and unlawful association.75 Subsequently, on June 29, 1994, the same court decided to order the prosecution of Mr. Jenkins “and, consequently, to convert his arrest into preventive detention.”76 Therefore, the Court will focus on this decision – that is the order of preventive detention – to verify its compatibility with international standards. 79. The Court notes that the said decision of June 29, 1994, only includes the grounds for the existence of the offense sanctioned in article 7 of Law No. 23,737 and the presumed participation of Mr. Jenkins. Thus, the decision merely indicates the “charges” that involved Mr. Jenkins.77 According to this decision, Mr. Jenkins, together with other defendants: […] carried out […] various actions relating to illicit trafficking in drugs for their mutual benefit. They were all aware of the purpose of the activity. They all profited from it. They should all be considered participants in the organization dedicated to the commercialization, distribution, transportation and storage of narcotic drugs.78 80. On this basis, the ruling ordered the imposition of preventive detention, indicating: […] Given the foregoing, I must order the prosecution of the said individuals and also, mindful of the type of wrongful act determined – since a suspended sentence is not in order – preventive detention, based on the offense mentioned above.79 81. The Court also notes that the said order did not contain any argument concerning the reasons why the detention of Mr. Jenkins was necessary, appropriate and proportionate to the objective sought, but merely focused on the existence of indications that allegedly linked Mr. Jenkins to the perpetration of a drug-trafficking offense. In addition, the Court notes that the judgment handed down by Federal Administrative Court No. 10 on April 30, 2007, rejecting the action for damages filed by Mr. Jenkins included an analysis of the order of preventive detention, based on which it considered that this was “not revealed to be unquestionably unfounded or arbitrary,” focusing on the indications that existed in relation to Mr. Jenkins: […] On the contrary, from what can be observed and despite the arguments of the petitioner, this measure took into account not only the conversation that cassette No. 40 refers to, but also other probative elements that – assessed as a whole and within a context of indications and given the stage of the proceedings at which it was ordered – convinced the court to order the preventive measures that the petitioner is now contesting.80 74 Cf. Case of J. v. Peru, supra, para. 159. 75 Cf. Request of National Federal Criminal and Correctional Court No. 9, of June 7, 1994 (evidence file, folios 5755 and 5756). Cf. Decision in preliminary investigation No. 1030 ordering the prosecution of Mr. Jenkins and others of June 29, 1994. (evidence file, folio 5868 and 5869). 76 Cf. Decision in preliminary investigation No. 1030 ordering the prosecution of Mr. Jenkins and others of June 29, 1994 (evidence file, folio 5864). 77 Cf. Decision in preliminary investigation No. 1030 ordering the prosecution of Mr. Jenkins and others of June 29, 1994 (evidence file, folios 5864 and 5865). 78 Cf. Decision in preliminary investigation No. 1030 ordering the prosecution of Mr. Jenkins and others of June 29, 1994 (evidence file, folio 5866). 79 Cf. Judgment of Federal Administrative Court No. 10 rejecting the action for damages filed by Mr. Jenkins on April 30, 2007 (evidence file, folio 5742). 80 21