33 101. Regarding Article 8 of the Convention the Commission stated that: a) the Ecuadorian authorities did not respect the terms established by law for the processing of this case. The internal regulations state that the indictment, which is the first stage of the criminal process, cannot last more than sixty days, and that the intermediate stage cannot surpass twenty one days. The legislation also establishes that the opinion must be requested within a maximum of fifteen days, and that the full trial may not last more than fourteen. “[T]he criminal process in its totality shouldn’t have lasted more than 100 days, however in the case of Mr. Acosta [Calderón] it took five years and a month;” b) due to the delay caused by the reiterated intents of the tribunals to obtain incriminating evidence and, finally, of the impossibility to present physical evidence of the crime, Mr. Acosta Calderon remained in preventive detention during five years and one month; c) the case in question was not complex “especially because the evidence that arises from the case file […] is little and it goes back to the date of the arrest.” The case file included documents that had no relationship whatsoever with the case in question. Mr. Acosta Calderón’s statement was lost and had to be received again two years later. Likewise, there is no evidence that the alleged victim carried out activities that delayed the actions. On the contrary, “the procedural activities carried out by Mr. Acosta [Calderón] looked to accelerating the process by urging the judicial authorities to reach a conclusion.” Finally, the loss of the alleged drug is attributable to the State, reason for which the delay in concluding the process results unreasonable and a violation of Article 8(1) of the Convention in connection with Article 1(1) of the same; d) the State violated Article 8(2)(d) and (e) of the Convention, in connection with Article 1(1) of the same instrument, by not granting Mr. Acosta Calderon access to a defense counsel when being questioned by the police. Pursuant to Ecuadorian legislation the statement made by the alleged victim without the presence of a defense counsel is inadmissible in any legal criminal process. In this case, “the [mentioned] statement was used to convict [the alleged victim] to nine years in prison;” e) the State did not observe the principle of presumption of innocence included in Article 8(2) of the Convention since the High Court “which is legally obliged to check all the dismissals of the criminal courts, […] presumed the guilt of [the alleged victim] and ignored numerous norms of the Ecuadorian legislation as per which the confession [given by Mr. Acosta Calderón before the police was] flawed and the process was legally unsustainable;” f) “not having presented any physical evidence in the process Mr. Acosta [Calderón] was denied the possibility to contest the legality of the substance he was allegedly carrying.” “The impossibility faced by Mr. Acosta [Calderón] to defend himself or dispute the charges of which the High Court presumed his responsibility, in the absence of all contradicting process, violated his right to the presumption of innocence since his guilt had not been proven by law;” and