CCPR/C/115/D/2358/2014 Contrary to the findings of Court No. 19, the author submits that before that date the courts were free to try any case within the State party’s legal order. He adds that even taking 1 March 1985 as the start date, the offence of homicide for which he was tried became time-barred in 2005. However, in his case the courts applied the concept of dangerousness, established under article 123 of the Crimina l Code, to extend the period of limitation for that offence. In view of his age and the fact that he has never evaded justice, the author considers that the application of this article to his case is unlawful and arbitrary. 3.4 The author emphasizes that the non-applicability of the statute of limitations to war crimes and crimes against humanity is regulated by Act No. 18026, which entered into force on 25 September 2006. The Act cannot, therefore, be applied to events that occurred before that date. The author argues that the State party’s Constitution enshrines the principle of non-retroactivity of criminal law, and that Act No. 18026, of 25 September 2006, could not therefore be applied to his case as the acts for which he is being tried occurred some 30 years earlier. The author maintains that the procedure provided for in that Act was applied retroactively in his case, placing him at a disadvantage vis-à-vis the plaintiffs and the Public Prosecution Service. 3.5 The author submits that the principles of res judicata and non bis in idem were not respected, because the proceedings brought against him, which resulted in his conviction in 2009, did not take into account other earlier proceedings, in which the same facts and the same persons had been tried, and in which the courts had concluded that the cases should be shelved in application of Act No. 15848. In this connection, the author refers to a case brought before the First Rota Criminal Court of First Instance (case No. 87-10103/2002), when he had been tried on charges of homicide but the case had subsequently been shelved. 3.6 The author refers to the denial of his request to serve his prison sentence under house arrest. Articles 127 and 131 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Bail and Parole, adopted by Act No. 17897 of 14 November 2005) give judges the possibility of ordering house arrest for offenders aged over 70. However, pursua nt to article 9.1 of Act No. 17897, this possibility is not available to persons who have been convicted of homicide in cases, like the author’s, in which the aggravating circumstances defined in articles 311-312 of the Criminal Code apply. The author submits that this provision was enacted specifically with the aim of excluding the possibility of house arrest in his case. He points out that, because of his age, the sentence of 25 years ’ imprisonment is equivalent in practice to life imprisonment. 3.7 Lastly, the author claims that Act No. 15737 and Act No. 15848 are not applied in the same manner by the State party. Unlike Act No. 15737, which is applied without exception, Act No. 15848 requires the Executive to rule on whether or not a matter under investigation falls within the scope of the Act. Since 2005, the application of the latter Act to in-service and retired military officers, particularly by the judiciary, has been influenced by exceptional criteria and regulatory interpretations that are not applied to other citizens — a situation constituting a violation of various constitutional provisions. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 On 22 May 2014, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility of the communication. The State party maintains that the communication should be found inadmissible because it is manifestly unfounded and an abuse of the right to submit a communication ratione materiae. 6/11 GE.15-21845