the American Convention, and the right to presumption of innocence, established in Article 8(2) of the American Convention, all in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention, to the detriment of Víctor Manuel Ancalaf Llaupe. b) Pre-trial detention of Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia, Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia, Juan Ciriaco Millacheo Licán, José Benicio Huenchunao Mariñán and Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles345 b.i) Pertinent facts a) Pre-trial detention of Jaime Marileo Saravia, Juan Ciriaco Millacheo Licán, José Benicio Huenchunao Mariñán and Patricia Troncoso Robles 328. On January 28, 2003, the hearing to open the investigation with regard to, among others, Jaime Marileo Saravia, Juan Ciriaco Millacheo Licán, José Benicio Huenchunao Mariñán and Patricia Troncoso Robles was held in the Collipulli Guarantees Court. During the hearing, the Public Prosecution Service requested their pre-trial detention and the judge ordered this. She based her decision on the consideration that “the confidential testimony seen by this judge constitutes well-founded presumptions of the participation of the accused in the said acts” and that “at the present time, since the accused are subject to personal precautionary measures in other pending proceedings, without prejudice to the subsequent review of such measures, it was in order to grant the pre-trial detention requested by the Public Prosecution Service.” The precautionary measure to which they were already subject was also that of pre-trial detention.346 b) Pre-trial detention of Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia 329. During the hearing to monitor the detention and to open the investigation with regard to Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia, held in the competent court on March 16, 2003, the Public Prosecution Service requested his pre-trial detention and, in a decision issued the same day, the Collipulli Alternate Guarantees Court ordered this. It founded its decision as follows: “based on the information provided, this judge finds that both the existence of the offense to be investigated, and the participation and responsibility in it that can be attributed to the accused have been proved sufficiently at this procedural stage.” He also indicated that “based on the form and circumstances of the perpetration of the wrongful act investigated, the importance of the harm caused by it, and the punishment that it entails, this judge finds that, at this procedural stage, the release of the accused would be a danger to the security of society; thus, this make the precautionary measures of pre-trial detention admissible in his regard.” In addition, he indicated that “none of the circumstances established by the provisions of article 141 of the Criminal Procedural Code to exclude pre-trial detention are present in this case” and that “nor have the social and family ties indicated in the said article as a condition for the exclusion of pre-trial detention been proved during this hearing.” 345 The evidence relating to the facts established in this chapter on the pre-trial detention of Jaime Marileo Saravia, Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia, Juan Ciriaco Millacheo Licán, José Benicio Huenchunao Mariñán and Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles can be found in the file of the domestic criminal proceedings, a copy of which was provided during the processing of the case before the Commission (file of annexes to the Merits Report, appendix 1, folios 7804 to 10016). 346 The text of the decision indicates that “the respective defense counsel opposed the precautionary measure of pretrial detention indicating that article 140.b) of the Criminal Procedural Code had not been proved; in other words, that the participation of each of them in [the] events had not been proved.” After referring to the information presented by the Public Prosecution Service, which included testimony from anonymous witnesses, the judge considered that the existence of the offense had proved and that “the secret testimony examined by this judge gave rise to well-founded presumptions of the participation of the accused in [the] events.” She added “that, at this stage of the proceedings, it is not necessary to assess this background material as evidence, and it will be open to discussion at the pertinent procedural opportunity,” in other words, “during the oral trial.” Lastly, she took into account that the accused were already in pre-trial detention as a result of other pending proceedings (file of annexes to the Merits Report 176/10, appendix 1, folios 8666 and 8667). 115