20 statements rendered in the presence of a public attestor (affidavits) and during the public hearing. In so doing, it will abide by the principles of sound judicial discretion in the relevant regulatory framework, always cognizant of the full body of evidence and the allegations in the case.60 VII FACTS 69. The Court will set out the proven facts in this chapter and then rule on the alleged violations in the instant case. The Court recalls that, in keeping with article 41(3) of its Rules of Procedure, it may hold as accepted any facts that have not been expressly denied and any claims that have not been expressly challenged. This chapter will also include information on relevant events that took place prior to the date when Argentina recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court (September 5, 1984), to help understand the circumstances under which the facts of the case unfolded after that date and to clarify the limits on the Court’s jurisdiction ratione temporis. A. Facts that occurred prior to the State's recognition of the contentious jurisdiction of the Court (September 5, 1984) 70. Certain irregularities were discovered in September, 1980 in the accounting and administrative services of agencies and units of the Argentine Air Force, and action was initiated in a Military Court of Criminal Investigation against at least 32 active-duty members of the Air Force, including the 22 alleged victims.61 71. Nineteen of the alleged victims in the instant case were arrested at the beginning of the process and held incommunicado62 for presumed commission of the crime of military fraud as codified in article 843 of the then-current Code of Military Justice.63 They were accused of the following conduct, which was later found illegal: (i) allocating credits from several Air Force units so they could then benefit personally from the amounts of these payments and funds, and (ii) failing to return the surplus from credits legitimately posted to the units, in their own benefit.64 While they were in detention in September and October 1980, the alleged victims delivered initial formal statements to the Judge of Military Criminal Investigation 65 and were ordered into pretrial detention under the terms of article 314 of the Code of Military Justice, on the grounds that “the procedures undertaken and the evidence gathered in the case 60 Cfr. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs, par. 76, and Case of Tarazona Arrieta et al. v. Peru, par. 28. 61 Judgment by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, June 5, 1989 (evidence file, folio 43 to 53). 62 This did not apply to Mr. Carlos Alberto Galluzzi, who was arrested on April 1, 1982 for an earlier attempted escape. Cfr. Order to reincorporate Mr. Carlos Alberto Galluzzi into the process, September 4, 1995, handed down by Military Court of Criminal Investigation No. 1; warrant to arrest Mr. Ricardo Omar Candurra and Mr. Félix Oscar Morón and hold them incommunicado, September 20, 1980 (evidence file, folio 6416, and file on the merits, folios 449, 450, 571, 572, 636, 2029, 12320 and 12321). 63 Code of Military Justice (Law 14.029, July 4, 1951): “Art. 843. – Any active-duty personnel who, by reason of their service, hold money, credit bonds or any other property belonging to the State and divert it from its legal use for their own benefit or that of someone else, have committed military fraud.” 64 65 Cfr. Judgment by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, June 5, 1989 (evidence file, folios 53ff). Among others, Cfr. Certification by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, February 19, 1985, recording procedures undertaken with Mr. Miguel Oscar Cardozo, indicating that his formal statement had been taken at an initial hearing on September 23, 1980; formal statement at initial hearing by Mr. Alberto Jorge Pérez, October 7, 1980; formal statement at initial hearing by Mr. Félix Oscar Morón, September 18, 1980 (evidence file, folios 6509 to 6512, 6530 to 6534 and 7885; and file on the merits, folios 418, 459 and 636).