32 96. Ecuador kept Mr. Acosta Calderón in preventive detention for more than five years, without presenting at any time during the process the corresponding report, which would procedurally justify the existence of the substance whose property was attributed to Mr. Acosta Calderón and required by internal legislation in order to be able to convict him (supra paras. 50(8), 50(11), 50(12), 50(15), 50(16), 50(17), 50(19), 50(20), 50(23), 50(31), 50(32), 50(36), 50(38), 50(39), 50(40), and 67). In view of this situation, Mr. Acosta Calderon presented several appeals for legal protection of his freedom before the corresponding judicial authorities requesting the reversal of his arrest warrant and his release (supra paras. 50(14), 50(21), 50(22), 50(25), 50(26), 50(30), 50(32), and 50(34)). However, despite the fact that they could not find the alleged drug that was lost, the State did not grant Mr. Acosta Calderón his freedom, either conditional or of any other nature (supra para. 50(40)). 97. The Tribunal warns that Article 7(6) of the Convention demands that recourses like the present must be decided by a competent judge or tribunal without delay. In this case, this prerequisite was not fulfilled since the recourses presented by the alleged victim, inter alia, on October 8, 1991, October 18, 1991, January 24, 1992, March 27, 1992, and July 1, 1993 (supra paras. 50(21), 50(22), 50(25), 50(26), 50(30), and 50(34)) were not ruled on after their presentation. In the recourses in which the State decided on the repeated requests of Mr. Acosta Calderón, such as the request of July 27, 1990 (supra para. 50(14)), Ecuador did not do so within the 48hour period established in Article 458 of the Code of Criminal Procedures of 1973, since the decision was issued on September 13, 1990, 44 days later (supra para. 50(16)). That is, even when the recourse of legal protection of freedom does exist formally, it was not effective in the present case, since it was not fulfilled with the objective of obtaining, without delay, a decision regarding the legality of the arrest or detention of the alleged victim. 98. Regarding the allegations presented by the representatives in relation with the constitutional amendments of 1996 and 1998, with reference to the exercise of the guarantee of legal protection (supra para. 87(f)), the Tribunal will not issue a decision since these amendments are not within the conditions of the present case. 99. Based on the aforementioned considerations, the Court considers that the requests of the alleged victim for legal protection to his freedom did not receive a treatment pursuant to the standards of access to justice included in the American Convention (supra paras. 50(21), 50(22), 50(25), 50(26), 50(30), and 50(34)). The process was not carried out in a diligent manner that would permit its effectiveness to determine the legality of Mr. Acosta Calderón’s arrest. 100. Due to all the above, the Court concludes that the State violated in detriment of Mr. Acosta Calderon the right to resort to a competent judge or tribunal, so that they may decide, without delay, on the legality of his arrest or detention and order his release if the arrest or detention were illegal, as well as the right to judicial protection, enshrined in Articles 7(6) and 25 of the American Convention, in relation with Article 1(1) of the same. X Violation of Article 8 of the American Convention (Right to a Fair Trial) ARGUMENTS OF THE COMMISSION