28 relation to Article 1(1) thereof. Also, in application of the iura novit curia principle, the Court finds that the State is responsible for the violation of Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the ICPPT. * * * • 95. In their final written arguments, the representatives asked the Court to classify the acts of torture perpetrated against Mr. Bayarri as crimes against humanity. 96. Based on the elements available in the instant case, the Court is unable to find that the torture of which Juan Carlos Bayarri was a victim took place in a context of massive and systematic violations. IX ARTICLES 8 (RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL) 91 AND 25 (RIGHT TO JUDICIAL PROTECTION)92 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 1(1) (OBLIGATION TO RESPECT RIGHTS) THEREOF 97. The Inter-American Commission stated that there had been a delay in processing the two criminal actions relating to the instant case. Regarding the action in which Mr. Bayarri appeared as the accused, the Commission indicated that its processing lasted almost 13 years, the period during which the victim was deprived of liberty. Regarding the case in which Mr. Bayarri was the complainant, the Inter-American Commission indicated that the State took more than 14 years to conclude the investigation into the facts and that more than 16 years have elapsed and a judgment in first instance has not yet ruled on the criminal responsibility of the State agents who intervened in the facts. In this regard, it indicated that “even though a substantial number of measures were taken, […] the judicial proceedings as a whole have not been able to confirm or deny that a human rights violation was committed, and have not produced an alternative explanation for the injuries.” 98. Furthermore, the Commission argued that “[t]he prolonged preventive detention to which Mr. Bayarri was subjected implie[d] that the Argentine State presumed that he was guilty and treated him as such,” thus violating the principle of the presumption of innocence. In addition, the Inter-American Commission alleged that the State violated Article 8 of the American Convention “owing to the coercion to which he was subjected in order to extract a confession of guilt.” 91 In this regard, Article 8 of the Convention establishes that: 1. Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature. 2. Every person accused of a criminal offense has the right to be presumed innocent so long as his guilt has not been proven according to law. During the proceedings, every person is entitled, with full equality, to the following minimum guarantees: […] (g) 92 The right not to be compelled to be a witness against himself or to plead guilty […] Article 25(1) of the Convention stipulates: Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties.