each specific case the State must justify and prove, precisely and in detail, the existence of the said requirements established by the Convention.337 2. Examination of the alleged violations a) a.i) Pre-trial detention de Víctor Ancalaf Llaupe338 Pertinent facts 313. As already indicated (supra para. 137), on October 17, 2002, the investigating judge of the Concepción Court of Appeal issued the indictment against Víctor Ancalaf Llaupe and also “issue[d] an arrest warrant against [him].” Mr. Ancalaf Llaupe was arrested on November 6, 2002, and, as he was already being processed, he was kept in pre-trial detention. No specific reasons were given for the pre-trial detention which was a result of the proceedings. 314. The indictment included a list of evidence gathered and a summary of the acts investigated and, with regard to the implication of Víctor Manuel Ancalaf Llaupe in the said acts, it indicated the following in the seventh paragraph: 7. That, these same events and the preliminary statements of Víctor Manuel Ancalaf Llaupe himself, on folios 318 and 967, reveal well-founded presumptions to consider that he participated as perpetrator in the three offenses described above. On this basis and also in view of the provisions of articles 15 of the Criminal Code, 274, 275 and 276 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and 10 and 14 of Law No 18,314, it is declared that Víctor Manuel Ancalaf Llaupe is brought to trial as perpetrator of the terrorist offenses described in the preceding consideranda, committed on September 29, 2001, and March 3 and 17, 2002, established in article 2.4 of Law No. 18,314 in relation to article 1 of the same law. 315. On April 24, 2003, Mr. Ancalaf Llaupe’s defense filed a request for his pre-trial release, “[c]onsidering the time that [Mr. Ancalaf] had been deprived of liberty and that it cannot be considered that his release may interfere with the measures taken in the preliminary proceedings.” The investigating judge denied this request the following day. 339 On April 30, 2003, Mr. Ancalaf’s defense filed an appeal against this decision, which was denied on May 5, 2003, by the Concepción Court of Appeal without any explicit justification. 316. Eight months after the start of the deprivation of liberty, on July 7, 2003, Mr. Ancalaf’s defense filed another request for pre-trial release considering that “[t]he investigation had concluded.” The following day, the investigating judge denied this request in the same terms as the denial of April 25, 2003. 317. Mr. Ancalaf remained in pre-trial detention until December 30, 2003, the date on which the judgment convicting him was delivered (supra para. 144). a.ii) Considerations of the Court 318. Having examined the indictment of Víctor Ancalaf Llaupe issued on October 17, 2002, based on which he was deprived of liberty, the Court notes that this decision did not comply 337 Cf. Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile, para. 198, and Case of J. v. Peru, para. 159. 338 The evidence relating to the facts established in this chapter regarding the pre-trial detention of Mr. Ancalaf Llaupe is in the file of the domestic criminal proceedings against Víctor Manuel Ancalaf Llaupe, a copy of which was provided to the Court in these proceedings (file of annexes to the CEJIL motions and arguments brief, annex A, folios 990 to 1018, and 1444 to 1520), and with the helpful evidence presented by the State with briefs of October 17 and 23, 2013, with which it provided a copy of the file of the criminal proceedings held against Mr. Ancalaf Llaupe. This evidence was also provided during the processing of the case before the Commission (file of annexes to the Merits Report, annex 6 and appendix 1). 339 “With regard to the fourth petition, based on the merits of this case, the number of offenses that the accused is charged with and their nature, and pursuant to article 363.1 and 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and articles 142 of the Code of Military Justice and 27 of Law 12,927, the pre-trial release requested by the accused Victor Manuel Ancalaf is not admissible as he is considered to be a danger to the security of society.” Cf. Decision issued on April 25, 2003, by the investigating judge of the Concepción Court of Appeal (file of annexes to the CEJIL motions and arguments brief, annex A, folio 1446). 112