finalized. In this regard, it provided the decisions of the first and second instances that were issued prior to the ruling by the Inter-American Court and had not been presented to the Court. The State also submitted a third decision, issued by the Supreme Court of Argentina after the Court ruling (hereinafter "the Supreme Court" or "Supreme Court of Justice”). 22. The decision of the court of first instance,16 issued on December 17, 2003, deemed that the ability to bring criminal charges for the crime of “duress” 17 had expired, taking into account that the maximum penalty would have been of five years.18 This instance argued that: i) it did not involve a crime against humanity; ii) it "ha[d] not mediated the interruption off the statute of limitations, and iii) "given the attack on the guarantee of reasonability regarding the duration of the process.” The ruling states that “it had become inevitable to end once and for all with the state of uncertainty involved in all of the criminal investigations,” noting that the right of defense includes “the right to a proceeding conducted in a reasonable time.” Moreover, because "the cause of action [was] not crippled by international delays.” On August 11, 2004, a decision of the second instance19 was issued, wherein it confirmed the statute of limitation was enacted because the facts did not constitute a crime against humanity, since they did not “encompass the nature of the crimes that affect, given their generalization and serious gravity and systematization, the human condition.” 23. On July 11, 2007, forty days after the issuance of the decision of the InterAmerican Court, 20 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the statute of limitations in the criminal action relating to this case, by issuing its response to an appeal made by Mr. Bueno Alves. 21 In its judgment, “the Supreme Court held that the facts alleged to have occurred in this case did not constitute a crime against humanity, therefore these crimes were not exempt from a statute of limitations.” The State added that "notwithstanding, [...] it submitted a copy of the decision of the Inter-American Court to the Supreme Court's Office.” 16 Incident regarding the expiration of the statute of limitations of the criminal action on December 17, 2003, resolved by Examining Judge No. 13 (case file of monitoring of compliance with Judgment, tome I, folio 169) 17 The decision stated that “the codification of torture was discarded for duress, this on this basis of the evaluation of the quality of the available evidence.” Cf. Incident regarding the expiration of the statute of limitations of the criminal action, supra note 16, folio 182. 18 Art. 144 Bis.- He or she shall be punished with imprisonment or confinement of one to five years and disqualification for double the time: [...] 2 º. the officer who performing an act of service commits against persons or will commit duress [...] Cf. Incident regarding the expiration of the statute of limitations of the criminal action, supra note 16, folio 186. 19 Judgment issued on August 11, 2004, by the National Appeals Chamber on Criminal or Correctional matters (case file of monitoring of compliance with Judgment, Tome I, folios 189). 20 The decision of the Inter-American Court, issued on May 11, 2007,was notified to the State on May 30, 2007. 21 The State noted that the ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice resolved an appeal of facts presented by Mr. Bueno Alves against the rejection of an extraordinary remedy against the decision of the second instance, which confirmed “the expiration of the statute of limitations of the criminal action of the charged.” Cf. Note SDH-DAI No. 170/08 of October 1, 2008 (case file of monitoring of compliance with Judgment, tomo I, folio 58). 10