60 violation of the right to freedom referred to in Article 7(5) of the American Convention also becomes evident; i) The Peruvian Judge had the power and the obligation to grant freedom ex officio, through conditional release, which could take place at any time, upon confirming that the charges brought against the defendant were not sufficiently solid; j) The only appropriate remedy available at the domestic level to request the freedom of Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas, considering the state of the indictment, “is the request for the reversal of the court order […], or the alteration of the arrest warrant by one of restrictive appearance.” This remedy of reversal of court order “is the one which has been repeatedly exhausted by Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas’ defense counsel, a remedy which has not been sustained as the judge hearing the case has refused to consider the new evidence existing in the proceedings;” k) The State of Peru has accepted the solitary confinement imposed for the term during which the defendants were detained in the police station: Wilson García-Asto for twelve days, in application of the provisions of Article 12(c) and (d) of Decree-Law No. 25.475, and Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas, for fourteen days until they were brought before a judge. Said circumstances violate Article 7(5) of the Convention; l) The solitary confinement, which was authorized in Decree-Law No. 25.475 for a term of fifteen days, is clearly excessive, in violation of what is set forth in Article 7(3) of the Convention; m) The alleged victims were deprived of the right to appear before a competent judge or court so that the latter would decide, forthwith, on the legality of their arrest or detention. These facts confirm a violation of Article 7(6) of the Convention; and n) During the processing of the internal proceeding against Urcesino RamírezRojas, and during the detention and the processing of the proceeding against Wilson García-Asto until his conviction, the restrictions imposed to the habeas corpus remedy constituted a violation of Article 7(6) of the Convention. Arguments of the representatives 99. With respect to the alleged violation of Article 7 of the Convention, the representatives pointed out that they agreed with the arguments presented by the Commission in its complaint and added that: a) The alleged victims remained in custody as a consequence of their detention by police officers, in conditions which did not comply with those established by the State Constitution beforehand and of a guilty verdict delivered in proceedings where the guarantees of a fair trial were not observed; b) The new proceedings against Wilson García-Asto were commenced one month and twenty-five days after the annulment of the first proceedings against him, wherefore, during the term between January 15, 2003 and March 10, 2003, the alleged victim was arbitrarily deprived of his freedom “without a condemnatory