28 83. The Commission’s argument that Mr. Acosta Calderón’s preventive detention violated the principle of presumption of innocence (supra para. 51(g)) will be discussed when analyzing Article 8(2) (infra pars. 109 through 115). * * * 84. As a result, the Court concluded that the State violated Articles 7(1), 7(3), and 7(5) of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the same in detriment of Mr. Acosta Calderón. IX Violation of Articles 7.6 and 25 of the American Convention (Right to Personal Liberty and Judicial Protection) 85. Despite that neither the Commission nor the representatives expressly stated a violation to Article 7(6) of the Convention, this does not prevent this Court from applying it, since this precept is one of the basis for the protection of the right to personal liberty by a judicial body and it would be applicable in virtue of a general Legal principle, iura novit curia, which international jurisprudence has recently used repeatedly in the sense that the judge has the power and even the obligation to apply the judicial appropriate stipulations in a cause, even when the parties have not invoked them expressly.66 ARGUMENTS OF THE COMMISSION 86. Regarding Article 25 of the Convention, the Commission indicated that: a) the preventive detention or Mr. Acosta Calderón was not judicially revised for more than five years. “Article 458 of the Ecuadorian Code of Criminal [Procedures] states that every time a detainee appears before a competent judge to request his release, the judge must immediately order the appearance of the [detainee] and, after evaluating the necessary information, he must issue a ruling regarding the request within the following 48 hours. Mr. Acosta Calderón repeatedly requested the reversal of his arrest warrant and his release, since the tribunal had not been able to substantiate the crime. Despite these requests, the criminal judges kept looking for the lost evidence and kept him in preventive detention;” b) the guarantee of access to a simple and effective recourse established in the Convention does not materialize itself through the mere formal existence of adequate recourses to obtain a release order. These remedies must be effective, since their purpose is to obtain a decision regarding the legality of the arrest or detention without delay; 66 Cfr. Case of the “Mapiripán Masacre”. Preliminary Objections and Acknowledgment of State Responsibility. Judgment of March 7, 2005. Series C No. 122, para. 28; Case of Tibi, supra note 6, para. 87; and Case of “Children’s Rehabilitation” Case, supra note 59, para. 126.