29. The tribunal added that the sentence was to be served at Guayaquil Prison and that the time that he had already spent deprived of his liberty should be deducted from the sentence, in accordance with Article 54 of the Sentences and Social Rehabilitation Code.30 30. The IACHR notes that Mr. Carranza filed no appeal to challenge that judgment. V. ANALYSIS OF LAW 31. Having regard to the submissions of the parties and the proven facts, the Commission’s legal analysis is presented in the following order: A. Matter precedent concerning the scope of the case; B. The right to personal liberty and the right to be presumed innocent; and C. The right to a trial within a reasonable time. A. Matter precedent concerning the scope of the case 32. Taking into account the various arguments formulated by the petitioner, the Commission considers it pertinent first to refer to the scope of this case. 33. In that connection, the petitioner argued that his arrest was illegal and arbitrary, that his detention was unreasonable, that he received inadequate medical attention for the tuberculosis that he suffered, that violations of due process occurred, and that the sentence imposed was not proportional since he was not granted the reductions provided under domestic law. 34. The Commission recalls that in Report on Admissibility No. 154/11 it outlined the object of this case. Specifically, upon analyzing the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Commission noted that Mr. Carranza did not appeal against his conviction. In that regard, the analysis as to exhaustion of domestic remedies centered exclusively on Mr. Carranza's pretrial detention.31 Likewise, in the section on “colorability” of the petition in said admissibility report, the Commission focused solely on the pretrial detention, finding that “the facts alleged by the petitioner regarding the extended [pretrial] detention of Ramón Rosendo Alarcón could characterize possible violations [of] the rights to personal liberty, [a fair trial], and judicial protection.32 In that same section, the Commission found that the petitioner presented no arguments from which to find prima facie a possible violation of Article 5 of the Convention.33 35. In light of the foregoing, the following analysis of law will be confined to Mr. Carranza's pretrial detention. Furthermore, since the two matters are intertwined, the Commission will pronounce on whether his right to a trial within a reasonable time was violated in the criminal proceeding. B. The right to personal liberty and the right to be presumed innocent 36. The pertinent portions of Article 7 of the American Convention provide: 1. Every person has the right to personal liberty and security. (…) 3. No one shall be subject to arbitrary arrest or imprisonment. (…) 30 Judgment of the Fourth Criminal Tribunal of Guayas, December 15, 1998 Enclosed with the State's communication of July 15, 31 IACHR, Report on Admissibility No. 154/11, Case 12.197, Ramón Rosendo Carranza Alarcón, Ecuador, November 2, 2011, 2016. pars. 20-22. 32 IACHR, Report on Admissibility No. 154/11, Case 12.197, Ramón Rosendo Carranza Alarcón, Ecuador, November 2, 2011, 33 IACHR, Report on Admissibility No. 154/11, Case 12.197, Ramón Rosendo Carranza Alarcón, Ecuador, November 2, 2011, par. 27. par. 29. 6