39 on May 14, 1997 and another on May 4, 1998, respectively, whose results were contradictory (supra paras. 54(22) and 54(27)). 72. The first report stated that the substance seized was cocaine; the second stated the contrary. Mr. Alfredo López Álvarez was processed for the crime of drug trafficking. In these cases the processing is based on the existence of a prohibited substance, which was disproved in the second report. 73. The tribunal of the case did not evaluate in a timely manner the evidentiary contradiction pursuant to the parameters of the domestic law and the American Convention, in order to precise if the conditions that justified Mr. López Álvarez’s preventive detention still existed. 74. It was not until January 13, 2003, almost five years after the appearance of the evidentiary problem on May 4, 1998, that the Sectional Court of First Instance of Tela referred to the contradiction of the evidence and issued an acquittal in favor of Mr. Alfredo López Álvarez based on the fact that “there [were …] two toxicological reports with different results and being that they referred […] to the same evidence the body of the crime was not proven.” (supra para. 54(40)). Said decision was confirmed on May 29, 2003 (supra para. 54(41)) through the judgment of the Appellate Court of la Ceiba, which stated that [… i]n the event that it is accepted that the packages [seized in the arrest] that appear as evidence in the present trial were seized from the accused, it would not be possible to determine if in effect they contained a prohibited substance, since we can not know which of the two samples analyzed was actually taken from said packages [… and] since, based on the assessment of the evidence included in the trial, we could not derive the conclusion that the accused h[ad] participated in an act that constituted a crime […], it is evident that what proceeds is to confirm the [acquittal]. 75. By maintaining the alleged victim under preventive detention in these circumstances, his right to not be subject to an arbitrary and illegal arrest or imprisonment was violated. * * * 76. Article 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedures of Honduras, at the time of the facts, stated that [a] commitment order may not be issued without the existence of conclusive evidence that a crime or simple offense that deserves the punishment of deprivation of liberty has been committed and without the existence of rational evidence of who the author is. [… E]vidence will be understood as any fact, act, or circumstance that helps the Examining Judge acquire the conviction that a person has participated in committing a crime. 77. The Code of Criminal Procedures of Honduras distinguished between the degrees of conviction necessary to arrest in flagrante, which could be done based on the mere presumption of having committed a crime (supra para. 62), and those necessary to issue an order of preventive detention. The latter should be based, according to domestic law, on “conclusive evidence” of the execution of the crime and “rational evidence” of its wrongdoing, that is, on evidence more determining than that necessary to make an arrest in the case of a crime detected in the act.