violates the principle of equality and, consequently, intrinsically harms all those who belong to this category of defendants.97 94. The Court agrees with the opinion of the Supreme Court of Justice of Argentina and considers that the criterion used to exclude Mr. Jenkins from the benefit of the maximum duration of preventive detention meant that this unreasonably exceeded the limit established for preventive detention in domestic law, and also constituted unequal treatment compared to other individuals in a similar situation who had access to that benefit. (ii) Justification of the prolongation of the preventive detention 95. In addition, the Court notes that, in the instant case, the request for release filed by Mr. Jenkins was rejected, not only owing to the refusal to apply the limits stipulated in article 10 of Law No. 24,390, but also because the domestic courts again analyzed the pertinence of the preventive detention. Thus, the Court notes that the decision issued by Federal Oral Criminal Court No. 6 that declared the action of unconstitutionality filed by Mr. Jenkins inadmissible, in addition to rejecting his petition, analyzed why the release of Mr. Jenkins should not be authorized, based on the following reasons: […] In the pertinent order to bring him to trial, he was attributed with the offense of coperpetrator of illicit trafficking in drugs, consisting of their transportation, aggravated by the intervention of more than three persons, […] and unlawful association […] concurrently. In view of the penalty established for these offenses in our substantive laws, and since none of the presumptions established in article 317 of the national Code of Criminal Procedure exist, the benefit requested cannot be granted.98 96. This Court notes that, both Federal Oral Criminal Court No. 6 and the higher courts that ratified this decision merely rejected the action of unconstitutionality filed by Mr. Jenkins without reevaluating his situation when several years had passed since he entered prison and, above all, without verifying whether the legitimate purpose to continue the preventive detention subsisted. In particular, the Court notes that, in its decision of October 2, 1996, after rejecting the unconstitutional nature of the said article 10, Federal Oral Criminal Court No. 6 justified the continuation of Mr. Jenkins’ preventive detention based merely on: (i) the procedural status of the criminal proceedings; (ii) the role of co-perpetrator of the alleged offenses of illicit trafficking in drugs and unlawful association; (iii) the punishment established for those offenses, and (iv) the fact that none of the presumptions established in article 317 of the national Code of Criminal Procedure existed. 99 Cf. Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation in the case of Veliz, Linda Cristina ref/ case No. 5640, Application for judicial review, V. 210. XLI, of June 15, 2010 (evidence file, folios 5659 to 5661). 97 98 4553). 99 Cf. Decision of Oral Court No. 6 of October 2, 1996, dismissing the action of unconstitutionality (evidence file, folio This article stipulated the following: Release. Admissibility. Art. 317. Release may be granted: 1) When exemption from imprisonment is in order. 2) When the defendant has served the maximum punishment established by the Criminal Code for the crime or crimes of which he is accused in preventive or pre-trial detention. 3) When the defendant has served the punishment requested by the prosecutor in preventive or pre-trial detention that, prima facie, would appear adequate. 4) When the defendant has served the punishment imposed by the non-final judgment. 5) When the defendant has served a time in preventive or pre-trial detention that, if he had been convicted, would have allowed him to obtain conditional release, provided he has respected the prison rules. 25