*** 356. In view of the fact that the pre-trial detention to which the presumed victims were subjected was arbitrary, the Court does not find it necessary to consider whether the time of more than one year, in each case, during which they were in pre-trial detention exceeded reasonable limits.354 357. To all the foregoing, it should be added that, in none of the cases, the condition of seven of the presumed victims as members of an indigenous people was taken into account and, in particular, the positions of traditional authority occupied by Messrs. Norín Catrimán and Pichún Paillalao as Lonkos and Mr. Ancalaf Llaupe as Werken of their respective communities. In order to ensure effectively the rights established in Article 7 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, when interpreting and applying their domestic laws, State must take into consideration the inherent characteristics that differentiate members of the indigenous peoples from the general population and that constitute their cultural identity.355 The prolonged duration of pre-trial detention may have different effects on members of indigenous peoples owing to their economic, social and cultural characteristics and, in the case of community leaders, may also have negative consequences on the values, practices and customs of the community or communities in which they exercise their leadership.356 358. For the reasons set out in this chapter, the Court concludes that the State violated the rights to personal liberty, not to be subject to arbitrary imprisonment, and not to suffer pre-trial detention in conditions that are not consistent with international standards recognized in Article 7(1), 7(3) and 7(5) of the American Convention, and the right to the presumption of innocence, established in Article 8(2) of the American Convention, all in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention, to the detriment of Víctor Ancalaf Llaupe, Jaime Marileo Saravia, Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia, José Benicio Huenchunao Mariñán, Juan Ciriaco Millacheo Licán, Patricia Troncoso Robles, Segundo Aniceto Norín Catrimán and Pascual Huentequeo Pichún Paillalao. 3. Alleged non-compliance with the obligation established in Article 2 of the American Convention (Domestic legal effects) 359. CEJIL alleged that Article 2 of the Convention had been violated in relation to the regulation of “[t]he grounds of danger to the security of society,” because it considered that “it violates the treaty-based guarantees, owing both to its implications and to the failure to adapt it to the relevant international standards.” CEJIL referred to the 2008 reform of the Criminal Procedural Code in relation to these grounds, but affirmed that “the ambiguity of the grounds […] was not rectified” and, rather, that “certain hypotheses [were included] where the judge was obliged to presume they existed (article 140.3, Criminal Procedural Code).” The FIDH did not allege a violation of Article 2 of the Convention, but asked the Court to order that “the grounds of danger to the security of society be eliminated” from domestic law (infra para. 462). Meanwhile, Chile contested these allegations, arguing that “with regard to the admissibility of pre-trial detention owing to danger to society or to the victim, it is […] irresponsible to allege that safeguards should not be ordered in cases where past events indicate that a person could, if in liberty, not only flee or affect the investigation, but also endanger the victim of the offense investigated or other persons.” The State affirmed that it “did not understand why the safety of the investigation would be a legal right that had sufficient value to provide grounds for ordering 354 Cf. Case of Tibi v. Ecuador, para. 120, and Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador, para. 142. 355 Cf. Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, paras. 59 and 60, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, para. 162. 356 Mutatis mutandis, Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, para. 154, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 4, 2012 Series C No. 250, para. 177. 122