39 or a consular official, as corresponds, to inform them that he is in the State’s custody.81 In the case of the consular notice, the Court has stated that the consul may assist the detainee in different acts of defense, such as the granting or hiring of legal representation, the obtainment of evidence in the country of origin, the verification of the conditions in which the legal assistance is exercised, and the observation of the defendant’s situation while he is imprisoned.82 In this sense, the Court has also affirmed that the individual right to request consular assistance from his country of nationality must be recognized and considered within the framework of the minimum guarantees to offer foreigners the opportunity to adequately prepare their defense and have a fair trial.83 The non-observance of this right affected Mr. Acosta Calderón’s right to defense, which forms part of the guarantees of the due legal process. 126. From the aforementioned, the Court concludes that the State violated, in detriment of Mr. Acosta Calderón the right to a defense, established in Articles 8(2)(d) and 8(2)(e) of the American Convention, in connection with Article 1(1) of the same. * * * 127. Due to all of the above, this Court considers that the State violated Article 8(1), 8(2), 8(2)(b), 8(2)(d), and 8(2)(e) of the American Convention, in connection with Article 1(1) of the same, in detriment of Mr. Acosta Calderón. XI Article 2 of the American Convention (Domestic Legal Effects) ARGUMENTS OF THE COMMISSION 128. Regarding Article 2 of the Convention the Commission alleged that: a) the State violated Articles 24 and 2 of the Convention due to the discriminatory treatment against Mr. Acosta Calderón as a person accused of violations to the law on narcotics; and b) once the charges presented against Mr. Acosta Calderón were dismissed in December of 1993, he could not recover his freedom because Article 121 of the Law on Narcotic and Psychotropic Substances did not permit the release of a person after the dismissal of the charges “until the report is confirmed by the Superior Tribunal within the framework of an obligatory ‘request of opinion’. Also, the fact that, after the conviction, he was not freed under his word due to 81 Cfr. Case of Tibi, supra note 6, para. 112; Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 57, para. 93; and Case of Bulacio, supra note 69, para. 130; and The Right to Information on Consular Assistance in the Framework of the Guarantees of the Due Process of Law. Advisory Opinion OC-16/99 of October 1, 1999. Series A No. 16, para. 106. 82 Cfr. Case of Tibi, supra note 6, para. 112; Bulacio Case, supra note 69, para. 130; The Right to Information on Consular Assistance in the Framework of the Guarantees of the Due Process of Law. supra note 81, para. 86; and U.N., Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons Under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, supra note 55, Principles 13 and 16. 83 Cfr. Case of Tibi, supra note 6, para. 195; and The Right to Information on Consular Assistance in the Framework of the Guarantees of the Due Process of Law. supra note 81, para. 122.