Therefore, although it was a question of petitions to avoid the deprivation of liberty, they did not directly question the lawfulness. Therefore, it is not appropriate to analyze them in relation to Article 7(6) of the Convention.141 128. Secondly, the appeals regarding the preventive deprivations of liberty, filed on January 8 and March 5,1999, were based on a failure to comply with the provisions of Article 182 of the CCP, namely, the allegation that there were insufficient elements of guilt (supra paras. 45 and 57). On January 28 and April 21, 1999, the judicial authority resolved those appeals after examining that argument and rejected the appeals with respect to the four of the accused and revoked the deprivation of liberty of the other two (supra paras. 46 and 58). The foregoing shows that the remedies of appeal were effective inasmuch the judicial body examined the legality of the deprivations of liberty based on the allegations of the accused and answered them effectively without an excessive delay being shown or alleged. Therefore, there was not, with respect to those remedies of appeal, an infringement of Article 7(6) of the Convention. 129. Finally, it is now necessary to analyze the requests for an alternate measure of deprivation of liberty filed on August 2 and 16, 1999, that is, after the modification of the criminal procedural order in Venezuela (supra paras. 59 and 61), on behalf of Wilmer Antonio Barliza González, Fernando González, María Angélica González and Belkis Mirelis González, and denied on the latter date (supra para. 61). 130. The facts show that the defense of the four persons requested their release with the argument that there was no danger of flight nor of obstructing the proceedings. The intervening judicial body, on August 16, 1999, rejected the defense’s petition, asserting that those reasons did exist. However, it did not give the grounds for the assertion. 131. Bearing this in mind, it must be concluded that the judicial authority did not adequately examine the allegations regarding the lack of evidence of a possible flight or the obstruction of the investigations. This lack of adequate grounds implied a denial of the right to appeal the detentions since that requires that the judicial authorities adequately analyze the legality of the deprivation of liberty and the mere invocation of a legal provision does not satisfy this requirement. The Court concludes that the victims were not granted an effective remedy that would safeguard their right to personal liberty. 132. Therefore, regarding the request for an alternate measure of deprivation of liberty presented on August 2, 1999, the Court holds that the State, to the detriment of Wilmer Antonio Barliza González, Fernando González, María Angélica González and Belkis Mirelis González, violated Article 7(6) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. B.4 Conclusion 133. Pursuant to the above, the Court declares that the State violated the right to personal liberty, recognized in Article 7 (1) and (2) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, as well as Article 7 (1) and (3) and the right to judicial guarantees, with respect to the presumption of innocence, recognized in Article 8(2) of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, to the detriment of Belkis González, María Angélica González, Fernando González, Wilmer Antonio Barliza González, Luis Guillermo González and Olimpiades González. The State also violated the It is to be noted, on the other hand, that the implication of the failure to consider such requirements by the judicial authority was already examined in relation to Article 7(3) of the Convention (supra para.118). 141 35