107. According to the evidence in this case, on December 27, 1999, Mr. Jenkins filed an action for damages against the State and against J.J.G., head of National Federal Criminal and Correctional Court No. 9, an act that initiated the proceedings before Federal Administrative Court No. 10.107 On June 8, 2000, that court partially rejected the action filed by admitting the objection of lack of legitimacy to be sued in the case of J.J.G. – because the withdrawal of his immunity had not been requested previously – and decided to continue the proceedings against the State alone.108 On April 30, 2007, National Federal Criminal and Correctional Court No. 9 rejected the plaintiff’s claim.109 108. Mr. Jenkins appealed the said decision before Chamber III of the National Appellate Chamber for Federal Administrative Disputes and, on March 25, 2008, the Chamber ruled confirming the first instance decision, considering that there was a total lack of grounds for the complaint and that the acquittal was not based on manifest innocence, but on the insufficiency of probative elements.110 109. Based on the above, the analysis in this section will focus on evaluating the period between December 27, 1999, when the action for damages was filed, and March 25, 2008, when the final judgment was handed down on appeal by Chamber III of the National Appellate Chamber for Federal Administrative Disputes. b.1 Complexity of the matter 110. Regarding the complexity of the matter, the Court has taken into account various criteria to determine this, including the complexity of the evidence, the diversity of procedural subjects or the number of victims, the time that has elapsed since the violation, the characteristics of the remedy established by domestic law, and the context in which the violation occurred. 111 111. In the instant case, the Court notes that the purpose of the action for damages filed by the victim against the Argentine State and the head of National Federal Criminal and Correctional Court No. 9 was to obtain compensation for the duration of his preventive detention. Mr. Jenkins was released owing to the prosecutor’s request that he be acquitted during the hearing of the criminal proceedings,112 which resulted in his release on November 19, 1997. 113 112. Mr. Jenkins substantiated the action by indicating, inter alia, that: (i) the preventive detention ordered against him and the order to bring him to trial had constituted a grave judicial error in a criminal case; (ii) the judgment delivered by Federal Oral Criminal Court No. 6 was evidence of the judicial error; (iii) the advance punishment had a causal nexus to the damages claimed, because it exceeded the limits necessary to ensure the development of the investigation and his appearance; (iv) the lapse of three and a half years that he had remained in preventive detention was 23, 2015. Series C No. 308, para. 176. Cf. Action for damages filed by Mr. Jenkins against the State and against the judge who ordered his detention of December 27, 1999 (evidence file, folios 4820 to 4836). 107 108 Cf. Decision of Federal Administrative Court No. 10 of June 8, 2000 (evidence file, folios 4658 to 4660). Cf. Judgment of Federal Administrative Court No. 10 rejecting the action for damages filed by Mr. Jenkins on April 30, 2007 (evidence file, folios 5736 to 5745). 109 Cf. Judgment of Chamber III of the National Appellate Chamber for Federal Administrative Disputes of March 25, 2008 (evidence file, folios 4668 to 1669). 110 Cf. Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua. Preliminary objections. Judgment of January 27, 1995. Series C No. 21, para. 78, and Case of Muelle Flores v. Peru, supra, para. 159. 111 112 4267). Cf. Judgment of Federal Oral Criminal Court No. 6 of the Federal Capital of December 23, 1997 (evidence file, folio Cf. Decision on the release of Mr. Jenkins, ordering his immediate liberation, of November 19, 1997 (evidence file, folio 5875). 113 28