36 151. Following his conviction, José Agapito Ruano Torres filed for review remedies on three occasions: August 1, 2003; September 22, 2003; and November 22, 2006. In all those filings he offered the testimony of his brother Rodolfo Ruano Torres admitting to his involvement in the kidnapping of Mr. Rodríguez Marroquín. In the final filing he also offered statements by another of the convicted defendants, who admitted that he had participated in the kidnapping with Rodolfo Ruano Torres, known by the alias Chopo, and not with José Agapito Ruano Torres. These three remedies were also dismissed. 152. Because of that, in the case at hand the Commission finds that the remedies lodged with the different judicial agencies were not effective in upholding José Agapito Ruano Torres’s right of defense and presumption of innocence. Thus, the Commission concludes that the State did violate Article 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 thereof, with respect to Mr. Ruano Torres. 4. The incarceration of Mr. Ruano Torres as a result of the criminal trial 153. The Inter-American Court has maintained on several occasions that Article 7 of the American Convention regulates the guarantees necessary to safeguard personal liberty and, in connection with paragraphs 2 and 3, it has ruled that: Pursuant to the first of these provisions, no person may be deprived of his or her personal freedom except for reasons, cases or circumstances expressly defined by law (material aspect) and, furthermore, subject to strict adherence to the procedures objectively set forth in that law (formal aspect). The second provision addresses the issue that no one may be subjected to arrest or imprisonment for reasons and by methods which, although classified as legal, could be deemed to be incompatible with the respect for the fundamental rights of the individual because, among other things, they are unreasonable, unforeseeable or lacking in 188 proportionality. 154. The Court has said that the violation of judicial guarantees can have the effect of marring the entirety of a proceeding, as well as the consequences arising therefrom, including the imprisonment of a person.189 In addition, the Commission has said that in certain circumstances, violations of human rights committed when adopting decisions where a person’s liberty is at stake can make the arrest or imprisonment resulting from such decisions arbitrary.190 For example, one factor considered by the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detentions to determine when an arrest or imprisonment can be classified as arbitrary has been expressed in the following terms: When the total or partial non-observance of the international norms relating to the right to a fair trial, spelled out in [...] the relevant international instruments accepted by the States concerned, 191 is of such gravity as to give the deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character. 188 I/A Court H. R., Case of Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador, Judgment of June 24, 2005, Series C No. 129, para. 57; I/A Court H. R., Case of Tibi v. Ecuador, Judgment of September 7, 2004, Series C No. 114, para. 98. 189 I/A Court H. R., Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela, Judgment of November 20, 2009, Series C No. 207, para. 148. 190 IACHR, Report No. 172/10, Case 12.561, Merits, César Alberto Mendoza and others (Prison and life sentences for adolescents), Argentina, November 2, 2000, para. 175. 191 Working Group on Arbitrary Detention of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Fact Sheet No. 26, available at: http://www2.ohchr.org/spanish/about/publications/docs/fs26_sp.htm.