38. Effectively, on July 15, 1997, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation issued a judgment in the case of “Noro, Horacio José v. Ministry of Interior Affairs” ruling on the appeal filed by the State against the resolution of the National Federal Contentious Administrative Chamber granting the benefit of Law 24,043 to Mr. Noro. In its ruling the Supreme Court found as follows: The purpose of Law 24,043 was to grant financial compensation to persons deprived of their constitutional right to liberty, not by virtue of an order issued by the competent judicial authority but because of acts—whatever their formal expression—emanating illegally in certain circumstances from courts-martial or from those exercising the power of the Executive Branch of the Nation during the last de facto government. The essence is not the form taken by the act of authority—much less whether it meets the requirements of article 5 of law 21,650—but demonstrating the damage effectively done to liberty, to the different degrees set forth in law 24,043. […] Therefore, the law established that for the purposes of determining when the measures concluded (the grounds set forth in article 2) house arrest and supervised release will not be considered. Given that the purpose was to satisfy demands for equity and justice, and given that the law does not contain any definitions, “supervised release” should include both those cases that fell formally under the regulations of the de facto government [...] and other cases in which the individual was subjected to control and monitoring without guarantees or without the full exercise thereof, demonstrable on the merits, representing comparable harm to their liberty.36 39. On June 8, 1999, the National Federal Contentious Administrative Chamber denied the special appeal filed by Mr. Almeida on the grounds that it did not demonstrate an exception indicating that the judgment was based on flawed logic or an obvious lack of legal grounds.37 Mr. Almeida filed a motion for reconsideration of dismissal of appeal before the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation on July 7, 1999,38 which was found inadmissible by a resolution issued December 2, 1999.39 40. On November 28, 2003, the National Federal Contentious Administrative Chamber issued a judgment in the framework of case 143625/2002: “Robasto, Jorge Enrique v. Ministry of Justice and Human Rights.” The purpose of the judgment was to resolve an appeal filed against a resolution of the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights that did not take into account the period during which Mr. Robasto was under a supervised release regimen when calculating the compensation provided for under Law 24,043. In its examination of the appeal, the Chamber referred to the precedent set in the Noro case before the Supreme Court. Specifically, it stated that: The record sufficiently demonstrates that the appellant was in a situation in which his personal liberty was restricted, as contemplated by lawmakers in the wording of paragraph three of article 4 of law 24,043, which establishes that house arrest or supervised release Judgment issued by the Supreme Court of Justice on July 15, 1997, case of “Noro, Horacio José v. Ministry of Foreign Affairs” (evidence file, folios 50 to 52). 36 Resolution issued by the National Federal Contentious Administrative Chamber of June 8, 1999 (evidence file, folio 61). 37 Cf. Copy of the motion for reconsideration of dismissal of appeal filed by Rufino Jorge Almeida before the Supreme Court of Justice on July 7, 1999 (evidence file, folios 64 to 73). 38 39 Cf. Resolution of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation of December 2, 1999 (evidence file, folio 75). 12