E.1 Conclusion 117. The Court concludes that the applications for amparo that were filed were neither appropriate nor effective to control the lawfulness of the deprivation of liberty of the presumed victims. Therefore, the State violated the right to personal liberty established in Articles 7(1) and 7(6) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Messrs. Villarroel Merino, Cevallos Moreno, Coloma Gaibor, Vinueza Pánchez, López Ortiz and Ascázubi Albán. VII-2 JUDICIAL GUARANTEES, IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATIONS TO RESPECT AND TO ENSURE THE RIGHTS AND THE DUTY TO ADOPT DOMESTIC LEGAL PROVISIONS OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION131 A. Judicial guarantees 118. In this chapter, the Court will examine the alleged violations of judicial guarantees. First, it will refer to the failure to provide the presumed victims with prior detailed information of the charges against them and time to prepare their defense in relation to the report prepared by the Comptroller’s Office prior to the police criminal proceedings. Then, it will analyze the alleged violations of judicial guarantees during the police criminal trial, namely: (a) the lack of competence and impartiality of the court that heard the case, and (b) the unreasonable duration of the police criminal trial. Lastly, it will examine the alleged violation of judicial protection in relation to the claims for compensation alleged by the presumed victims. 119. In addition, regarding the criminal complaint filed by the presumed victims Villarroel Merino, Coloma Gaibor, López Ortiz, Ascázubi Albán and Vinueza Pánchez against Byron Pinto Muñoz for the offense of malfeasance in office,132 this Court notes that both the representative and the Commission referred to this complaint and that the State presented arguments to disprove the possible violations of due process in the corresponding proceedings. However, the Court notes that the representative and the Commission only mentioned the proceedings, without providing legal substantiation or supporting arguments concerning possible violations of the Convention. Therefore, the Court will not rule in this regard because it has insufficient elements to examine the said proceedings. A.1 Arguments of the parties and the Commission A.1.1 Right to prior notification in detail of the charges and adequate time and means for the preparation of the defense in relation to the report of the Comptroller General’s Office 120. The Commission alleged the violation of the right to prior notification in detail of the charges and the right of defense established in Articles 8(2)(b) and 8(2)(c) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument. The Commission noted that, taking into account the punitive implications of the administrative investigation which also preceded the start of the criminal investigation, the investigation should have been notified previously to the persons involved so that they would be aware of the possible irregularities that were being investigated and could exercise their right of defense. In addition, it noted that, in its answering brief, the State did not contest this allegation or prove, with pertinent documentation, that it had notified the presumed victims prior to 131 Articles 1(1), 2 and 8 of the American Convention. Cf. Complaint filed by Messrs. Villarroel Merino, Coloma Gaibor, López Ortiz, Ascázubi Albán and Vinueza Pánchez before the Prosecutor General on June 3, 2003 (evidence file, fs. 3672 to 3681). 132 31