64 258. The Commission stated in its final pleadings that the Code of Military Justice, the main source of the violations in this case, had been repealed in 2008 as the result of the State’s move to fulfill one of the commitments it had assumed in the friendly settlement agreement for violations committed against active-duty serviceman Rodolfo Correa Belisle. The Commission recognized that this repeal marked critically important progress as a measure to prevent the recurrence of the violations present in the case at hand. 259. The Inter-American Defenders asked the Court to order the State to adopt provisions in domestic law to set a mandatory maximum time limit on proceedings, after which the criminal action lapses, in order to prevent future situations of uncertainty such as that experienced by these applicants. 260. They also asked for amendment of Law No. 24.390, which under the current wording, reformed by Law 25.430, does not set a maximum term limit on pretrial detention, even though this would not necessarily imply release for the suspect. They pointed out that article 1 of Law 24.390223 sets a maximum of two years for pretrial detention, which can be extended for one more year in the presence of a well-founded decision. Article 2 of the same law, however,224 states that this time limit will not be applied if the time is served after the judgment is handed down, even if it is not final and may still be appealed. They asserted, therefore, that for cases in which a judgment is delivered before the two or three year maximum limit on pretrial detention is served, as provided in article 1 of Law 24.390, under the terms of article 2 of the law, those accused who are in prison while the process advances through later appeals and processes to have the first trial court’s decision either reversed or upheld, do not have a legal maximum on pretrial detention, which could continue indefinitely under such conditions. They therefore asked that the text of article 2 be removed or, alternatively, amended such that a maximum term would apply in such cases. 261. The Inter-American Defenders added in their final pleadings that, even beyond repeal of article 2 of Law 24.390 (amended under Law 25.430), it is also necessary to legally repeal articles 3 and 11 of Law 24.390, which in their view, allow for indefinite pretrial detention of certain suspects. Finally, they asked the Court to order the State to create a commission that would monitor the procedural situation of persons brought to trial but who remain in pretrial detention, to guarantee their right to a final decision within a reasonable period. 262. The State asked that this guarantee of non-recurrence be denied for two reasons. First, the law under discussion had not been in effect or applied to the case in question, as the facts subject to cognizance under the adjudicatory jurisdiction of this Court must fit into the period from September 5, 1984, until the Supreme Court delivered its last decision in 1998. The second reason given by the State is that the case law developed by this Court concerning a reasonable time for judicial process, under the guarantee given in article 8(1) of the Convention, favors the thesis of judicial discretion by contrast to legislative discretion. D.2 Considerations of the Court 223 Article 1 (text of law 25.430, B.O. 06/01/2001) states: “Pretrial detention may not exceed two years without a judgment. However, if the number of crimes attributed to the suspect, or if the clearly complex nature of the case prevent the trial from being completed during this time, the term may be extended for one more year, based on a well-founded ruling that must be communicated immediately to the relevant higher court for accounting purposes.” 224 Article 2 (text of law 25.430, B.O. 06/01/2001) states: “The time limits established in the above article shall not be calculated for the purposes of this law if they are served after the conviction is handed down, even if it is subject to appeal.”