inappropriate subsumption, it must be concluded that the conduct of the judge is irregular.” Lastly, he asked for compensation for pecuniary damage (loss of earnings), non-pecuniary damage, and expenses for psychological care, and claimed monetary compensation. He based his claim on articles 14, 16, 17 and 100 of the 1953 Argentine Constitution and articles 43, 1078, 1109, 1112 and 1113 et seq. of the Civil Code, as well as teachings and jurisprudence. 83. On April 14, 1992, the First Instance Judge of the Federal Administrative Court handed down his judgment in which he decided to admit the claim filed by Mr. Grande, confirmed the unlawful act by the State, and determined the scope of the damage and the amount of reparation, which he established, in equity, as the sum of $150,000 (one hundred and fifty thousand pesos) as compensation.25 In his judgment, the federal judge considered the following arguments: (a) the declaration of the invalid nature of the searches and all the resulting acts during the criminal proceedings [fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine], due to the clear violation of the guarantee of immunity of domicile; (b) the exclusionary rule as a legal mechanism that may only be applied when there has been specific harm to one of the parties that cannot be rectified by any other means, and that entails correcting the proceedings for the benefit of the defendant; (c) that, based on having declared the invalidation, the criminal judge ordered the dismissal of the case against the defendant in relation to the facts for which he was being investigated, stating for the record that the fact that preliminary proceedings had been opened did not harm his good name and reputation, and (d) that, since eight years had passed since the beginning of the case, it appeared that it would not be possible to obtain new evidence. 84. In addition, the First Instance Judge referred to the State’s responsibility for its jurisdictional acts, and indicated that doctrine offered different interpretations, but broadly speaking, the responsibility of the State and its corresponding obligation to provide compensation can result from both its lawful and its unlawful activities, because their admissibility only requires the effective existence of a damage caused directly and immediately by the conduct of the State. The law stipulates that when the State is responsible for unlawful acts that harm private individuals, this entails full compensation. The first instance judge added that “technically, it is not possible to speak of an alleged State responsibility owing to a jurisdictional activity, understood as the obligation to repair a harm committed by a judge,” because, in the instant case, the annulment ordered by the Federal Criminal and Correctional Chamber related to acts committed by the Argentine Federal Police without any intervention of the national Judiciary. Lastly, he indicated that, what is at issue is a error in a service provided, understood as an irregular functioning of the administration of justice, and not a presumption of responsibility for jurisdictional acts, and he confirmed an unlawful action by the State in the case. 85. Both parties appealed the judgment of the First Instance Judge before the National Appellate Chamber for Federal Administrative Matters. The representatives of the plaintiff did so with regard to the amount of compensation ordered (considering it 25 Cf. Judgment of First Instance Court of the Federal Court for Administrative Matters delivered on April 14, 1992, in case No. 28,928 (file of the Commission’s appendices, appendix 5, fs. 919 to 933). 20