all times represented by his counsel, was shown all the evidence, and was given the opportunity to challenge the evidence and the judgements rendered. autonomous remedy that is exercised outside the criminal process or, in extreme cases, the application for protection (amparo), which has been granted by the Constitutional Court exceptionally in the face of irremediable injury when there is no other means of judicial defence. 4.6 Concerning the author’s argument that the most favourable criminal law in Colombia’s procedural law was not applied, the State party considers that this argument falls outside the scope of the Covenant and is therefore inadmissible. 4.2 As regards the question of the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the State party considers that the procedural time limits set in Colombian legislation for a criminal proceeding are not, prima facie, unreasonable or arbitrary and do not nullify the right to be heard within a reasonable period. 5.1 In his comments of 13 December 1999, 21 August 2001, and 23 April 2002, the author responds to the State party on the question of admissibility and the merits, and states that with the decision on the application for judicial review of 18 January 2001, the problem of the exhaustion of domestic remedies has been resolved, but presses the point that the Supreme Court took 39 months to reach a decision on the application and that there had thus been unwarranted delay in the remedies available domestically. On the application for review, the author maintains that this is not admissible since it is an autonomous action and not a remedy that is in conformity with article 5, paragraph 2 (b) of the Optional Protocol. He argues that in criminal law, “Action is not the same as remedy: the actio is an abstract right to take procedural action of a public nature in order to trigger jurisdictional activity, while the remedy is the means of challenging a decision in an ongoing trial. In this case, the ordinary remedies and the special remedy of appeal, provided for during the trial and the criminal proceedings under Colombian criminal law, have been exhausted, so that no other remedy remains to be exhausted.” 4.3 As to the merits, the State party argues that Law No. 2 was enacted in 1984 in view of the urgent need to incorporate into the justice system appropriate provisions for addressing new forms of crime, including offences related to drug trafficking. The Law conferred on the specialized judges jurisdiction over cases of this kind. Subsequently, Decree No. 2790 of 1990, issued under the Constitution of 1886, assigned jurisdiction to the courts of public order. However, pursuant to the constitutional reform and to the new Constitution of 1991, a special commission was established to review existing legislation. On finding that the legislation was in conformity with the new constitutional order, the commission decided to incorporate it permanently into the criminal legislation through Decree No. 2266 of 1991. This Decree assigned to the regional courts, known as “faceless” courts, jurisdiction for drug-trafficking offences, which included the offence committed by the author. 5.2 The author likewise maintains that the application for protection or amparo laid down in article 86 of the Constitution was also inadmissible since the Constitutional Court had declared unconstitutional, in a decision of 1 October 1992, the articles that allowed this action against judgements and other judicial decisions in criminal matters. Moreover, the application for protection would only be admissible if the person concerned had no other means of judicial defence, such as the remedy of judicial review. 4.4 The State party notes that article 250 of the Constitution established the Office of the Public Prosecutor and invested it with power to investigate punishable acts committed in Colombia. The purpose of these provisions, insofar as criminal activities such as drug trafficking were concerned, was to ensure the proper administration of justice, which at that time was seriously threatened by practices such as corruption and intimidation of officials. The State party likewise maintains that these provisions have been adapted to the Colombian constitutional order from the legislation of other countries, which have used it in extreme situations such as those they have experienced in recent times. This does not imply a limitation of the principles and procedural rights mentioned below. 5.3 The author refers to the decision of 26 April 2001 of the Supreme Council of the Judiciary, which found that the application for protection “is inadmissible when the applicant has other means of judicial defence. The application for protection is not, therefore, an alternative, additional or complementary means to achieve the proposed end. Neither can it be claimed that it is the last resort available to the actor, because by its very nature, according to the Constitution, it is the only means of protection specifically incorporated into the Constitution to fill the lacunae that could arise in the legal system so as to provide full protection of 4.5 The State party argues that, consequently, claims concerning a violation of principles such as due process or legality are not valid, since throughout the proceedings against the author judicial officials have observed all applicable substantive and procedural norms, in particular those relating to defence rights and the adversarial and public nature of the proceedings. The author was at 108