CED/C/10/D/1/2013 4.3 The State party further asserts that the proceedings initiated ex officio following the death of Mr. Yrusta are continuing and that it cannot legitimately be claimed that those proceedings — which have been going on for less than one year — have exceeded a reasonable period of time. Accordingly, the State party asks the Committee to declare the present communication inadmissible. Additional information submitted by the authors 5.1 On 28 March and 30 May 2014, the authors submitted additional information to the Committee. They stated that on 3 February 2014 the Santa Fe Criminal Court of Appeal declared the decree of 22 April 2013 null and void and ordered that a hearing should be held to consider applications for recognition as private criminal plaintiffs, as provided for under article 96 of Provincial Act No. 12.734. 1 On 27 February 2014, the date of the hearing was set for 12 March 2014. However, the hearing did not take place because of the unjustified absence of the prosecutor in charge of the case (Prosecutor No. 5). The authors consider that the prosecutor’s absence is a clear demonstration of the State party’s efforts to hinder the investigation. 5.2 The authors add that the hearing was then held on 13 March 2014. On 17 March 2014, the request filed by Mr. Yrusta’s sisters to act as private criminal plaintiffs and to be represented by Gabriel Ganón was once again denied, on the following grounds: (a) The Provincial Public Defender lacks legal standing or capacity to act in the proceedings; (b) The Provincial Public Defender, by conducting the case for the plaintiffs, would assume prosecutorial responsibilities, thereby encroaching on the exclusive material jurisdiction of the Public Prosecutor; (c) In cases involving the suspicious or unlawful death of a defendant, the active role of the public defender ceases because the person concerned is no longer facing trial. In such circumstances, the responsibility for prosecuting cases lies primarily with the prosecuting authority and/or the private criminal plaintiff, who is advised or represented by a private lawyer or by professional counsel appointed free of charge by the provincial government, the latter having established legal aid centres for this purpose (under the authority of the provincial executive); and (d) Pursuant to the constitutional reasonableness test, Mr. Yrusta’s sisters are not considered to form part of “the limited category of protected heirs to an estate” (arts. 3591 and 3545 of the Argentine Civil Code) established for the purposes of allocating the reserved portion (porción legítima) thereof. 5.3 The authors consider that the judge misinterpreted the law because the Provincial Defender was appointed pursuant to Provincial Executive Decree No. 0199/2011, and his role as Public Defender is to guarantee the effective exercise of human rights and to secure the cessation of human rights violations. The authors add that the judge and the provincial authorities have misinterpreted the concept of “victim”, which they restrict to those persons who suffer the direct consequences of an offence. The authors claim that this interpretation denies them access to justice and redress and allows the perpetrators to go unpunished. 1 6 Article 96 of Provincial Act No. 12.734 states as follows: “Proceedings. The application shall be filed with the district prosecutor handling the case and a copy shall be provided to each defendant. The district prosecutor shall forward it without delay, together with an indication of whether or not the application has been accepted, to the court responsible for preliminary criminal examinations. The court shall summon the parties to a hearing within five days and shall rule on the matter immediately. If the court grants standing to the private criminal plaintiff, it shall order the prosecutor to allow him or her to join the proceedings as appropriate.” GE.16-05682