7. In relation to the alleged violation of the right to personal liberty, the petitioner alleged that Mr. Carranza was detained by police without a court order or being caught in the act of committing an offense. The petitioner said that the agents did not inform him of the reasons for his arrest. The petitioner added that he was held in pretrial detention for approximately four years, which was an unreasonably long time. 8. In relation to the alleged violation of the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection, the petitioner said that the criminal proceeding instituted against him did not meet the requirements of a fair trial. The petitioner argued that the sentence was not proportionate, in that he was not granted the reductions envisaged in domestic law in accordance with international standards. The petitioner said that Mr. Carranza was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment even though he had already spent four years in pretrial detention. B. The State 9. The State argued that Mr. Carranza’s arrest and the length of his pretrial detention were consistent with the provisions of its domestic system of laws and international standards. 10. With regard to Mr. Carranza’s detention, Ecuador argued that at no point did he file an application for habeas corpus in order to challenge his arrest. The State argued that his detention was lawful because there was a judicial order for his arrest as a result of the fact that he had been a fugitive from justice for almost a year. It added that after his arrest, Mr. Carranza was duly turned over to the relevant authorities for his case to be heard. The State also said that the duration of the pretrial detention was reasonable given that its purpose was to ensure Mr. Carranza's appearance at trial, bearing in mind that he had evaded justice for almost a year. 11. As regards Mr. Carranza’s criminal trial, Ecuador stated that it was conducted in accordance with the rules of due process. It held that Mr. Carranza’s conviction was handed down in accordance with its national law and international obligations. The State said that the duration of the proceedings was reasonable. Their duration was due to the complexity of the matter and the fact that Mr. Carranza had evaded justice for almost a year. It added that Mr. Carranza had access to all the remedies that the law afforded him, such as appeal, cassation, or review, but that he did not have recourse to them. 12. As to the proportionality of the sentence imposed on Mr. Carranza, the State said that the court that sentenced him accepted his plea of mitigating circumstances and modified the sentence that the law mandated (8 to 12 years). Ecuador said that the court sentenced Mr. Carranza to the “special term of imprisonment of six years, precisely for his good behavior.” IV. PROVEN FACTS A. Mr. Carranza’s arrest in August 1993 13. On August 16, 1993, Segundo Mariño Gamboa filed a complaint at the National Police Station in Yaguachi Canton, Guayas Province.2 Mr. Mariño said that his brother, Samuel Evaristo, had been murdered the previous day at an establishment that sold alcoholic beverages.3 He said that according to witnesses, were Ramón Rosendo Carranza Alarcón and Alfredo Vargas Recalde were at the scene and that they got into a 2 Complaint filed with the National Police Station in Yaguachi Canton by Mr. Segundo Mariño Gamboa, brother of Samuel Mariño, August 16, 1993. Enclosed with the State's communication of July 15, 2016. 3 Complaint filed with the National Police Station in Yaguachi Canton by Mr. Segundo Mariño Gamboa, brother of Samuel Mariño, August 16, 1993. Enclosed with the State's communication of July 15, 2016. 2