20 Regarding the damages caused to Mr. Acosta Calderón 50(46)The delay in the proceedings against him caused in Mr. Acosta Calderón a feeling of frustration and injustice.54 Regarding expenses and costs 50(47)Mr. Acosta Calderón was represented by CEDHU and be Messrs. César Duque and Alejandro Ponce Villacís before the courts of the Inter-American system of human rights protection, and they have incurred in expenses related to these procedures. VIII VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 7 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION (Right to Personal Liberty) Arguments of the Commission 51. Regarding Article 7 of the American Convention the Commission stated that: a) Mr. Acosta Calderón’s arrest “was carried out in flagrante delicto, when the Customs Military Police found a substance that possibly had the appearance of a prohibited drug, in which case the Commission could not say that the arrest itself was arbitrary;” b) the consideration of the evidence collected during the police investigation was done “with complete disregard to the procedural requirements of verification and constitution of the fact as material evidence of the crime, in complete detriment of constitutional guarantees and procedural laws, [which] implied an arbitrary detention;” c) the detention “became arbitrary due to its continuation presenting evidence that the alleged crime was actually perpetrated;” without d) “the first judicial action started with regard to his detention was adopted two years later, in October of 1991, despite that the Criminal Code requires that the person not remain in preventive detention more than six months;” e) the alleged victim “remained under arbitrary imprisonment for more than five years [without] a judicial conviction that justified [his] detention. The excessive continuation of the arbitrary detention disavowed its exceptional nature and turned it into punishment;” f) the alleged victim remained in preventive detention “while the State tried to find evidence to substantiate the cause against him.” At no time did the State prove “the existence of exceptional circumstances that justified the order of preventive detention;” and g) the unjustified and extended application of the preventive detention violates the principle of presumption of innocence. 54 Cfr. preliminary examination statement of October 18, 1992 given by Mr. Acosta Calderón before the Criminal Judge of Lake Agrio (dossier of annexes to the petition, annex 10, leaf 147).