68. The alleged victim appealed the decision of the First Magistrate.92 On May 31, 2001, the Second Chamber denied the appeal and confirmed the decision of the First Magistrate.93 On June 14, 2001, the alleged victim filed a writ of cassation against the decision of the Second Chamber with the purpose of appealing to the STJC.94 The next day, the Chamber declared the remedy inadmissible.95 69. The alleged victim filed a remedy of complaint before the STJC on the denied writ of cassation.96 According to what was claimed by the Commission and was not refuted by the State, on August 14, 2001 the STJC rejected the complaint for lack of a federal issue. C.5. Other facts related to the cases against the alleged victim 70. The alleged victim was detained on May 10, 2016 in compliance of a decision of the Second Criminal Oral Court of Corrientes, which consolidated three cases against him and which sentenced him to a term of 12 years’ imprisonment, of which he must serve at least seven years and seven months.97 The State did not dispute this information, but did challenge an analysis by the Court of the conjoint sentence and its computation for being beyond the factual framework established by the Commission. By Order N° 220 of June 16, 2016, the alleged victim was provisionally granted the benefit of serving the sentence under house arrest because he had a cardiac ailment and needed weekly medical controls.98 Later, “by Order N° 435 of November 3, 2016, the alleged victim was permitted to continue serving the sentence under house arrest […], under the care and responsibility of [Mrs.] Rocío Romero Feris and under the Social Forensic Corps’ supervision of the detention. In addition, the weekly medical controls were lifted.”99 71. The Court recalls that the above-mentioned facts and those that followed do not have any relation to the violations alleged by the Commission in its Merits Report and, therefore, will not be analyzed. VI. MERITS 72. The Court will now analyze the international responsibility of the State for allegedly violating several rights established in the Convention that are related to the alleged unlawful and arbitrary deprivation of liberty of Mr. Romero Feris, as well as the alleged violations to his right to judicial protection that occurred in the context of the four criminal charges against him. The Court will now consider and resolve the merits of the controversy. To do so, it will analyze: (a) his right to personal liberty and (b) his right to judicial protection. 92 Cf. Recourse of appeal (evidence file, fs. 1490 to 1495). 93 Cf. Second Criminal Chamber, Order N° 125 of May 31, 2001 (evidence file, fs. 1497 to 1499). 94 Cf. Writ of cassation of June 14, 2001 (evidence file, fs. 1500 to 1526). 95 Cf. Second Criminal Chamber, Order N° 242 of June 15, 2001 (evidence file, fs. 1527 to 1529). 96 Cf. Appeal of complaint of June 21, 2001 (evidence file, fs. 1530 to 1543). Cf. Press clipping “Corrientes: exGovernor detained” published in Clarín on May 10, 2016 (evidence file, fs. 196 to 200). 97 Cf. Case of Romero Feris v. Argentina. Request for Provisional Measures. Order of the President of the Court of August 22, 2018 98 99 Cf. Case of Romero Feris v. Argentina (evidence file, f. 77). 13