Id. at 447 — 48, 101 S.Ct. at 711 (some emphasis in original omitted) (quoting Council of State Governments, Suggested State Legislation Program for 1957, at 78-79). Thus, article IV is essentially an involuntary procedure applicable where the prisoner contests his or her return to the receiving state. If a prisoner is not brought to trial within either the applicable 120-day period prescribed in article IV or the 180-day period prescribed in article III, “the appropriate court of the jurisdiction where the indictment, information or complaint has been pending shall enter an order dismissing the same with prejudice, and [the] detainer based thereon shall cease to be of any force or effect.” HRS § 834-1, art. V(c); see also State v. Taylor, 729 S.W.2d 483, 485-86 (Mo. App.1987) (<HOLDING>); cf. State v. Carroll, 4 Haw.App. 573, 670
holding that if the time limits of the iad have been violated the charges underlying the detainer must be dismissed holding that if the federal claims are dismissed before trial  the state claims should be dismissed as well holding that because no class was certified at the time the individual claims were dismissed the class action was properly dismissed holding that a defendant is not entitled to dismissal of an indictment under the iad as no detainer had been lodged against him holding that the 180day time period in article 111a of the iad does not commence until the prisoners request for final disposition of the charges against him has actually been delivered to the court and prosecuting officer of the jurisdiction that lodged the detainer against him