4 with that detention, without a warrant, the alleged victim’s due process rights were violated once again. 19. From the information produced by the petitioners, it appears that on March 9, 2000, they reported the illegal detention, the preparation of the false police report, and the failure to return the bond, and other rights, before the prosecutor of the Court of Military Justice. In addition, the petitioners asked the prosecutor to apply the relevant sanctions against the investigative judge, the chief of intelligence, and members of his staff for the illegal detention. 20. They indicate that on March 10, 2000, the alleged victim was transferred to the Center for Provisional Detention on orders of the Third Judge for Criminal Matters of Pichincha. They indicate that on March 29, 2000, a second writ of habeas corpus was filed, which was rejected the same day, considering that an identical motion had already been resolved and denied. In the face of that response, an appeal to the Constitutional Court was ruled on favorably on May 9, 2000, as there was no arrest warrant issued by a judge with jurisdiction, and it was ordered that the alleged victim be released. 21. They allege that the victim was tried twice for the same crime, in violation of the principle of non bis in idem established in the American Convention; and that the authorities have sought to cover up the illegalities of the Military Criminal Court on detaining, prosecuting, and incarcerating a civilian. They allege that the right of the alleged victim to a regular judge with jurisdiction, and to an independent and impartial judge, was violated. 22. The petitioners argue that the criminal proceeding that was removed to the regular jurisdiction was drawn out for almost 10 years until in September 2009 it was declared to have prescribed, and in April 2010 the case was archived, though the defendant was not given notice. They argue that this delay was not reasonable. In this respect, they argue that a criminal proceeding for aggravated robbery (robo calificado) is not a complex case; that the interested party sought by all means to be placed at the orders of a judge with jurisdiction, and that his procedural activity was aimed at showing his innocence; and that there was delay in the conduct of the judicial authorities, given that a regular criminal proceeding in Ecuador takes approximately three years. 23. In addition, they argue that the delay caused uncertainty as to the personal liberty of the alleged victim, which has had an impact on his psychological integrity. Moreover, having had a case open for 10 years kept him from pursuing work opportunities, he was unable to recover the money attached in his savings accounts, and in the public realm he continued to be considered a criminal, based on his police record, even though there is no guilty verdict. 24. Based on the foregoing, the petitioners argue that the alleged victims suffered arbitrary detention and arbitrary, cruel, and inhuman treatment, as well as the violation of his procedural guarantees and his rights to due process and private property, in violation of Articles 5, 7, 8, and 21 of the Convention, in relation to its Article 1(1). B. The State’s position 25. In response to the petition the State argued that it is inadmissible due to failure to exhaust the remedy of habeas corpus with respect to the first detention, and the contentiousadministrative action. It also argues that given that the military criminal proceeding against the alleged victim was declared null and that the habeas corpus against the second detention of the alleged victim was effective, the facts that are the subject matter of the petition do not constitute a violation of the American Convention.