21 Arguments of the representatives 52. Regarding Article 7 of the American Convention, the representatives considered the arguments of the Commission as their own and also indicated that: a) the alleged victim was arrested without “an order of preventive detention or an arrest warrant issued by a judge. [...] The Police could not carry out an arrest based on a presumption, [...] they could not ‘presume’ that it was a substance subject to control, the Police’s duty was to determine, in the same act, that the [alleged] substance [seized from the alleged victim] was illegal;” b) not existing any evidence against Mr. Acosta Calderón “there could never be flagrancia[,] which would have been the legal cause for the arrest;” c) “the domestic law does not establish that the mere possibility of a possible infraction be sufficient cause to carry out an arrest, on the contrary [,] the crime must be carried out at the moment of the arrest or immediately before it. All arrest that does not comply with this requirement is arbitrary;” d) the legality of the arrest must be “legally sustainable for its entire duration. Thus, an arrest that was originally legal can become arbitrary, [...] without the initial legality being able to make up for the later arbitrariness. Likewise, an arrest with an arbitrary origin cannot be later corrected;” e) “the arbitrariness of the arrest was not only present when it occurred, but on the contrary, the arbitrariness continued perpetuating itself, both due to the extensive and excessive preventive detention as well as the conviction imposed, despite the fact that the material existence of the infraction was never proven;” f) Ecuador violated Article 7.4 of the Convention, “since the State summoned Mr. [...] Acosta Calderón with the court order to investigate an alleged crime on October 18, 1991, that is almost two years after the date of his arrest;” g) there were “serious procedural inconsistencies, that put in doubt the reality of the facts that surrounded the arrest and later processing of Mr. Acosta Calderón” and that constituted a violation of Article 7(5) of the Convention. Mr. Acosta Calderón “was not taken immediately before the Criminal […] Judge of Lake Agrio and, on the contrary, there was an unusual handling [in the case file] of the hours and eventually even of the dates in order to make it appear that there was a prompt appearance before the Criminal Judge;” h) the State violated Article 7(5) of the Convention by having wrongfully extended Mr. Acosta Calderón’s preventive detention for more than five years. The preventive detention became, in this case, a “pre-conviction or [...] conviction without a prior trial;” i) the present case was not complex or large, “the legal problem came down to determining the existence or non-existence of the criminal behavior of which he was accused, which should have been limited to establishing if the substance that lead to his arrest was or not the [alleged] drug. There was not a