insufficient),26 and the representatives of the State did so with regard to the admissibility of the case (the merits).27 86. On April 6, 1993, the Second Chamber of the National Appellate Chamber for Federal Administrative Matters overturned the first instance judgment, rejecting the complaint and concluded that the civil reparation ordered was inadmissible.28 The said Second Administrative Appellate Chamber first considered the appeal filed by the State, which was founded on the fact that the plaintiff had not acted in a way that deserved the sanction imposed since Mr. Grande’s failure to raise the issue of the invalidation made the doctrine of estoppel applicable29 and gave rise to the admissibility of an civil action for reparation. 87. In addition, the Second Administrative Appellate Chamber explained and noted that the Supreme Court of Justice had indicated that, anyone who provides a service must be responsible for any possible damage caused by its irregular execution, and although this doctrine has been applied in cases of allegations of damage produced as a result of judicial errors, it is only admissible to assign responsibility to the StateJudge when the judicial error is evident, and that, in that case, this has not occurred because Mr. Grande had benefited from the judgment which invalidated the searches, without having filed this remedy and the result of this invalidation was the rectification of the proceeding and the rejection of all those elements tainted by defects. This ruling changed that court’s opinion, by considering that the consent of the person who underwent the search was irrelevant to legitimize the invasion of the privacy of the home. Consequently, there was no manifest error in the plaintiff’s prosecution, especially since the dismissal of the case was based on the impossibility of obtaining further evidence. In addition, the Second Administrative Appellate Chamber found that Mr. Grande had not used all the legal remedies to obtain immediate redress, because he allowed the police to enter; and it did not rule on the other complaints. 88. Jorge Grande submitted a special federal appeal against this judgment of the Second Administrative Appellate Chamber alleging arbitrariness and requested that the appeal be considered filed and that, prior to it being admitted, that it be elevated to the Supreme Court of Justice.30 As grounds for the appeal, he indicated that: (a) res judicata applied with regard to the fact that the case originating the appeal was based on an unlawful act of the State, and (b) the criteria used to overturn the first instance judgment had been applied to the presumption that the proceeding had been conducted properly, but this could not extend to cases in which proceedings had been conducted in an irregular manner, because, in the latter case, State responsibility was generated automatically, to the extent that there was a harm; and this reasoning also applied to the argument of the judgment on appeal, when it stated that the plaintiff did not use all the legal remedies to obtain immediate redress. 26 Cf. Appeal of the plaintiff (undated) in case No. 28,928 (file of the Commission’s appendices, appendix 3, fs. 794). 27 Appeal by the State in case No. 28,928, which does not appear in the evidence provided by the parties to the Inter-American Court. The information indicated in this judgment appears in the judgment of the Second Appellate Chamber (file of the Commission’s appendices, appendix 9, f. 95). 28 Cf. Judgment of the National Administrative Appellate Chamber delivered on April 6, 1993, in case No. 28,928 (file of the Commission’s appendices, appendix 6, fs. 934 to 941). 29 Cf. Judgment of the National Appellate Chamber for Administrative Matters, supra note 27, fs. 934 al 941. 30 Special federal appeal filed by Mr. Grande before the Federal Administrative Chamber (undated) in case No. 28,928 (appendices of the Commission, appendix 3, fs. 819 to 830). 21