60 247. In the instant case, the Commission notes that Mr. Jorge Martínez was confined in preventive detention for a total of 4 years and nine months. The IACHR takes note that Mr. Martínez’ defense team challenged said measure on the grounds that it exceeded the legal limit established in the Code of Criminal Procedure of Costa Rica. In this respect, under the proven facts, it is noted that the court, which extended the preventive detention, recognized that the legal period of time had been exceeded but that it had “to be extended on an exceptional basis.” This situation was subsequently upheld by the Constitutional Chamber. 248. The IACHR notes that the State itself recognized that, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, the regular and special time limits of pre-trial detention were exceeded. However, it noted that in light of the significance of the phase the case was in at that time, it was essential for him to be present at the trial where the conviction was handed down and, therefore, the extension of the time in preventive detention was in line with international standards. 249. The Commission finds that the breach of the legal time period established in the Code of Criminal Procedure as the maximum for preventive detention constitutes, in addition to a violation of Article 7.2, which establishes that any deprivation of liberty must be legal, an indicator that the preventive detention was excessive and, therefore, was a violation of Article 7.5 of the Convention. This conclusion is bolstered by the fact that the judicial authorities, who acknowledged said breach of the legal limit, did not put forward any arguments to explain the procedural purposes pursued by continuing to hold him in preventive detention during the trial phase. The arguments outlined by the State to justify the period of preventive detention are not consistent with the Inter-American standards previously described. Based on the foregoing reasoning, the Commission concludes that the State violated the right to personal liberty as set forth in Articles 7.1, 7.2 and 7.5 of the American Convention, to the detriment of Jorge Martínez. 2. Other arguments pertaining to personal freedom 250. The Commission notes that Messrs. Manfred Amrhein Pinto, Ronald Fernández Pinto, Carlos Osborne Escalante, Carlos González Lizano and Arturo Fallas Zúñiga alleged that their detention was arbitrary, on the grounds that their convictions did not adhere to due process requirements. In this respect, the Commission finds that this argument is subsumed in the examination on the right established in Article 8.2.h of the Convention, wherein a violation of this due process guarantee to the detriment of the victims was already declared. Because of the nature of this conclusion, the IACHR does not deem it necessary to rule autonomously as to the alleged arbitrariness of the deprivation of liberty as a consequence of the aforementioned violation. 251. Mr. Rafael Rojas Madrigal further argued that his right to personal freedom was violated inasmuch as he was held in detention for more than 72 hours before being advised of the charges by the prosecuting attorney, in violation of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As Mr. Rojas Madrigal himself noted, this situation was addressed in the domestic courts by means of a petition for habeas corpus relief, which was granted. Hence, through its domestic judicial authorities, the State has remedied this violation. E. Right to humane treatment (Articles 5.1 and 5.2 of the American Convention in connection with Article 1.1 thereof) 252. With respect to Article 5 of the American Convention, the Commission has noted that: