confirmed, do not show that the State provided Mr. Cortez access to legal defense assistance. However, this Court also notes the State’s assertion that Mr. Cortez did have access to attorneys of his choice during the civilian proceedings. There is no evidence that Mr. Cortez was prevented from naming an attorney of his choice to act in his defense. The Court thus lacks sufficient information in this case to declare a violation of the right to defense assistance, established in Article 8(2)(d) of the Convention. 98. With regard to the length of the proceedings, in keeping with the findings above (supra para. 93), the Court will examine here the duration of criminal proceedings in ordinary courts only, not military courts. The total duration of the proceedings was close to 11 years (supra paras. 60–71). Within that span of time, there is no evidence of actions taken for nine years: from May 11, 2000, to September 2, 2009 (supra paras. 69 and 70). Given that extended period of judicial inactivity, the Court sees it as unnecessary to conduct a detailed analysis of the various elements of a reasonable timeframe for the trial (supra para. 96). Mr. Cortez Espinoza was subjected to almost 11 years of criminal proceedings, a duration which was unjustified. Thus, his right to be tried in a reasonable amount of time was violated. The State violated Article 8(1) of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1), to the detriment of Mr. Cortez Espinoza. VIII.2 RIGHTS TO PERSONAL LIBERTY, 92 JUDICIAL GUARANTEES, AND JUDICIAL PROTECTION 93 99. The Court notes that the representatives and the Commission alleged violations of the rights to personal liberty, judicial guarantees, and judicial protection, with respect to: (a) alleged detentions of Mr. Cortez on three occasions, (b) preventive deprivation of Mr. Cortez’s liberty on two occasions, and (c) the suitability and effectiveness of the existing remedies for the acts of deprivation of liberty. The State denied responsibility for all the allegations. These three sets of arguments will be presented separately below. The Court will then discuss its assessment of the alleged violations. Lastly, it will present its conclusion. A. Arguments of the Commission and the parties A.1 The detentions of Mr. Cortez 100. The Commission argued that Mr. Cortez’s three detentions were unlawful 94 and in violation of Article 7(2) of the Convention: (a) the first, on January 21, 1997, because it was ordered by a military prosecutor who did not have jurisdiction to do so, as Mr. Cortez was not active duty at the time, but retired; (b) the second, on July 11, 1997, because the detention order was not shown to him and he was not informed of the reasons for the detention; and (c) the third, on February 28, 2000, because the detention order was issued three days after the detention was carried out. The Commission added that the State did not prove that the military authorities had jurisdiction to issue or enforce a detention order against a civilian. In its final written observations, the Commission argued that all of the detentions were also arbitrary. Article 7 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Article 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights. 94 Regarding what constitutes an unlawful detention, the Commission stated that in 1997 as well as in 2000, the domestic laws of Ecuador required detention orders to be carried out pursuant to a judicial order or if a person is caught in the act of committing a crime. 92 93 23