65 263. This Court reiterates that, as stated in Chapter VIII-1 (supra par. 113 to 137), the State is responsible for violating articles 7(1), 7(3), 7(5) and 8(2) of the Convention, in conjunction with article 1(1) thereof, for the arbitrary and excessive time of detention to which the victims were subjected. Nonetheless, this Court also notes that Law 24.390 was published on November 22, 1994, and was amended under Law 25.430, enacted on June 1, 2001. The Court would further remark that several requests by the Inter-American Defenders were not raised at the right time in the proceedings, that is, in their pleadings and motions brief. These time-barred requests for reparation (supra 261) will therefore not be considered by this Court. 264. In view of the fact that the applicants were held in pretrial detention from 1980 to 1987 and from June to July of 1989, this same law and its reforms did not exist during these periods, and therefore are not applicable to the case. This Court accordingly cannot give a specific view on Law 24.390 and its reform or repeal under Law 25.430. E. Compensatory redress for pecuniary and nonpecuniary damage E.1 Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 265. The Commission asked in general terms for the State to grant comprehensive reparations, and most particularly, appropriate compensation to the 20 victims for the violations found in the Report on Merits. 266. Representatives De Vita and Cueto said that their clients had experienced multiple pecuniary and nonpecuniary types of damage as a consequence of the unreasonable amount of time they were subject to the process, the excessive time they were held incommunicado and the time they spent in pretrial detention, even exceeding the length of the sentence handed down by the National Chamber of Criminal Cassation, which caused them physical, emotional and spiritual impairment. They said that the applicants spent an average of seven years in pretrial detention and were eventually sentenced to prison terms of three to four years. Their family groups were damaged by the absence of the applicants during that time. 267. They said that the sentences of permanent and commercial disqualification, as well as the 50% cut in their wages during the time they were in pretrial detention wreaked economic and labor damage on themselves and their families, undermining the applicants’ life plans and aspirations. 268. With respect to pecuniary damages of lost wages and loss of earnings, representatives De Vita and Cueto requested repayment of the applicants’ blocked assets in the amount of USD 167,029.53 for the time elapsed from the moment they were arrested and held incommunicado in September, 1980 until March, 2004, when the Foreign Ministry of Argentina requested a proposal for reparation in the framework of the friendly settlement talks with the Commission. 269. They explained that the employment damage associated with their dismissal and loss of their military rank, the sentences of permanent, economic and commercial disqualification and the nonpecuniary damage experienced by the applicants and their families as a consequence of the irregular process they underwent should be quantified on the basis of 85.9% of the amount of assets withheld. This percentage is the average of the compensatory guidelines this Court has adopted in its body of case law, and when applied to the amounts requested by the applicants, comes to USD 143,478.37.