89. On June 10, 1993, the Federal Administrative Chamber decided the special federal appeal against the judgment, rejecting it and confirming the judgment on appeal.31 The reasoning for this rejection was that the specific considerations regarding the assessment of the criminal case and the applicable law had not been refuted. 90. Mr. Grande submitted a complaint to the Supreme Court of Justice32 against the previous decision owing to the rejection of the special appeal he had filed.33 On April 12, 1994, the Supreme Court of Justice decided to reject the complaint34 based on article 280 of the National Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure.35 Mr. Grande was notified of the decision on May 3, 1994.36 Considerations of the Court 91. Regarding the administrative proceeding, which was processed when this Court had jurisdiction, the Court observes that Mr. Grande filed a claim for damages under administrative law to determine his right to compensation, because he considered that he had been the victim of judicial error, in which he set out his claims and was heard by a competent judge. In addition, the alleged victim was able to file all the remedies available in the domestic jurisdiction, as indicated in paragraphs 82 to 90 of this judgment. 92. The Commission and the representative alleged the violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention in the said administrative proceeding. In this regard and in support of this contention, the Commission indicated, in general, that: (a) when processing the claim for compensation, the unlawfulness of the evidence offered in the criminal proceeding was not taken into account, or the prolonged lapse of time to reach a decision in that proceeding, and (b) the State did nothing to remedy the alleged violation of due process in the criminal jurisdiction, despite recognizing the irregularity in the administrative proceeding. For his part, the representative concurred with the Commission’s arguments and, in particular, indicated that the Second Administrative Appellate Chamber did not consider the unlawful conduct of the State with regard to the illegality of the evidence or the duration of the criminal proceeding. 31 The decision of June 10, 1993, which is not among the evidence provided by the parties to the Inter-American Court. The information in this judgment appears in the complained filed by Mr. Grande (infra note 31, f. 963). According to the State, “[t]he explanation for this rejection was that the specific findings relating to the assessment of the criminal case and the applicable law had not been refuted” (file of preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, brief answering the application, f. 127). 32 Cf. Complaint based on rejection of the special appeal before the Supreme Court of Justice filed by Mr. Grande before the Federal Administrative Chamber (undated), in case No. 28,928 (file of the Commission’s appendices, appendix 9, fs. 949 to 963). 33 The special appeal was filed against a final judgment that could not be appealed by any other means, delivered by the highest court with jurisdiction on behalf of the plenum of the Supreme Court of Justice (file of the Commission’s appendices, appendix 9, f. 949). 34 Cf. Judgment of the Argentina the Supreme Court of Justice handed down on April 12, 1994 (file of the Commission’s appendices, appendix 10, f. 964). 35 This article provides that: “when the Supreme Court hears a case by special appeal, the reception of the case shall entail a summons and also that the Court, based on its sound judicial discretion and merely invoking this rule, may reject the special appeal for lack of sufficient federal harm or when the questions raised are insubstantial or lack significance.” 36 Cf. Notification of Mr. Grande dated May 3, 1994 (the Commission’s appendices, appendix 3, f. 830). 22