6 regarding lack of jurisdiction. On July 2, 1996, the W Court overruled the objection challenging the prosecutor, and on March 26, 1998 the motion of “objection regarding lack of jurisdiction” was dismissed; 21) on December 2, 1996, the W Court reopened the motion regarding “lack of jurisdiction”, in which a statement was made on a “matter of law”, and the Appellate Court confirmed rejection of the objection on September 22, 1998. It also ordered the trial Court to “process the main proceedings with due promptness;” 22) on October 28, 1998 the defense counsel filed an extraordinary remedy for the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation to definitively decide the issue of competence raised in the objection. On October 30, 1998 the defense counsel itself requested temporary suspension of said remedy and filed a motion of annulment. A decision was reached on this motion of annulment on April 29, 1999 and its rejection was reconfirmed on December 16, 1999. On May 18, 1999 the Appellate Court decided that the extraordinary remedy was not in order and it returned the file to Trial Court No. 48, former W Court (hereinafter “Court No. 48); 23) on December 27, 1999 a new motion of annulment was filed. The applicant and the Public Prosecutor’s Office requested that this remedy be dismissed. On March 9, 2000, Court No. 48, in turn, rejected the request for absolute annulment and for the dismissal to be declared definitive. The defense counsel appealed this decision. The Appellate Court denied the request and the defense counsel filed an extraordinary remedy for the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation to adopt the final decision regarding annulment and dismissal. On December 7, 2000 the Appellate Court decided that the request for an extraordinary remedy was not in order; 24) on June 15, 2001, once the denial of the remedy requesting annulment had been declared final, the file returned to Court No. 48 to continue the proceedings with respect to the main case. On June 25, 2001 the defense counsel filed “objections requiring prior and special pronouncement”, which are being processed, seeking that the criminal action be declared extinguished due to statute of limitations and that the lawsuit be dismissed for lack of legal standing; and 25) on November 21, 2002 the VI Court of the Appellate Court decided that criminal action was extinguished. The Prosecutor’s Office appealed said decision, and at the time of the instant Judgment the parties have not informed this Court of any decision regarding the matter. III COMPETENCE 4. The Court is competent to hear the instant case, pursuant to Articles 62 and 63(1) of the American Convention. Argentina has been a State Party to the