I INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE AND THE PURPOSE OF THE DISPUTE 1. On May 4, 2010, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”), pursuant to Articles 51 and 61 of the American Convention, presented an application against the Argentine Republic (hereinafter “the State” or “Argentina”). The initial petition was submitted to the Commission on November 2, 1994, by Jorge Fernando Grande (hereinafter also “Mr. Grande” or “the alleged victim”). On February 27, 2002, the Commission adopted Admissibility Report No. 3/02.2 Subsequently, on November 10, 2009, the Commission adopted Report on Merits No. 109/093 and recommended to the State that it take all necessary measures to ensure that Mr. Grande “received an adequate and timely remedy providing full redress for the human rights violations,” and that it “take the corresponding investigative measures in order to establish the criminal and civil responsibilities.” Since the Commission considered that the State had not adopted these recommendations satisfactorily, it decided to submit the case to the jurisdiction of the Court. The Commission appointed Luz Patricia Mejía, Commissioner, and Santiago A. Canton, Executive Secretary, as delegates, and Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, Deputy Executive Secretary, María Claudia Pulido and Karla I. Quintana Osuna as legal advisors. 2. The facts alleged by the Commission refer to the State having subjected Mr. Grande “to criminal proceedings impaired by irregularities and undue delay, based on evidence that was later invalidated, and for failing to provide the victim with an adequate remedy to redress [by means of a contentious-administrative proceeding] the damage that occurred during the said criminal proceedings.” However, the petition lodged by Mr. Grande on November 2, 1994, that initiated the proceedings before the Commission related to the alleged violations in the proceeding under administrative law and indicated that the authorities responsible for the alleged violations were the Second Chamber of the National Appellate Chamber for Federal Administrative Matters (hereinafter also “the Second Administrative Appellate Chamber”) and the Supreme Court of Justice. 3. The Commission asked the Court to establish the international responsibility of the State for failing to fulfill its obligations by violating Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mr. Grande, by denying him his right to due process and an effective legal remedy. 4. On August 27, 2010, Pedro Patiño-Mayer y Ulurralde, in representation of the alleged victim (hereinafter “the representative”), presented his brief with pleadings, motions and evidence (hereinafter “the pleadings and motions brief”). Like the InterAmerican Commission, he requested that the Court declare the State’s international responsibility for the alleged violation of Articles 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Right 2 The Commission decided to declare “this petition admissible in relation to the alleged violation of the rights recognized in Articles 8, 25, and 1(1) of the American Convention, and in the relevant parts of Articles XXV and XXVI of the American Declaration. The claims presented regarding Article 10 of the American Convention are inadmissible.” 3 The Commission concluded that, as of September 5, 1984, […] the State […] is responsible for violation of the rights established in Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to the general obligations of Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Jorge Grande. The Commission also concluded that the State had violated the right to protection from arbitrary arrest established in Article XXV of the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man to the detriment of Jorge Grande. 3