40 a legal prohibition, constituted a discriminatory treatment, since the other members of the prison population, detained for crimes not classified in the drug law, could be freed immediately after the dismissal of the accusations.” ARGUMENTS OF THE REPRESENTATIVES 129. Regarding Article 2 of the Convention the representatives adopted the arguments presented by the Commission as their own and also indicated that: a) the order of the Judge to immediately release the alleged victim derived from the dismissal of the accusations presented against him on December 3, 1993, “was not executed, since Article 121 of the Law on Narcotic and Psychotropic Substances stated that the release order could not be complied with until the prior proeeding of request of the opinion of the [Superior Court] is fulfilled. This provision was applied only and exclusively to the persons processed for crimes related to drug trafficking;” b) “the judiciary branch and the State through the Judge of Criminal Matters of Lake Agrio decided to apply against [the alleged victim] a [l]aw that was not applicable to him. In effect, with the objective of a[voiding] that Mr. Acosta [Calderón] recover his freedom, the cause was referred to a Higher Court for their opinion and the release order was suspended. The request of opinion and suspension of the release set forth in the order of dismissal was not applicable to a process initiated before the Law on Narcotic and Psychotropic Substance (the same that came into force in September of 1990) came into force;” c) “in Ecuador there is a political determination to discriminate the detainees for crimes related with drug trafficking and under this context Mr. […] Acosta Calderón was a victim of this policy and of laws that permit discrimination;” d) the State violated Article 2 of the Convention in detriment of Mr. Acosta Calderón “by enacting and maintaining legislation that causes inequality before the law and imposes a regimen of discrimination in detriment of a category of defendants;” e) the laws in force at the time of the facts, as well as Law 04, which introduced an additional Article after Article 114 of the Criminal Code (hereinafter “Article 114 bis”) established that those tried for crimes determined in the Law of Narcotic and Psychotropic Substances were to be excluded of the benefits of this law; f) the Constitutional Court of Ecuador declared the unconstitutionality of Article 114 bis of the Criminal Code of December 16, 1997. However, even when this rule was declared unconstitutional, on December 18, 1997 an amendment was introduced in the Code of the Execution of Judgments in which a discriminatory stipulation in detriment of the same “category of defendants” was included; g) on one hand Ecuador established “limitations to the right to a judicial recourse and the development of the recourse outside of the limits established in the Convention […] and, on the other hand, when the facts occurred, […] it