Article 32 of the Law of Constitutional Enforcement sets forth that a petition for habeas corpus relief may also be filed with the Mayor of the Canton where the filer deprived of liberty is located as provided for in Article 114 of the Criminal Code […]the first unnumbered article, second subsection of which, was found unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court in decision 109-1-97, published in R.O.222 of December 24, 1997, wherein it excluded from those provisions defendants being tried for crimes punished under the Law on Narcotic and Psychotropic Substances. As a result of that amendment, individuals that have remained in custody without their case either being dismissed or trial proceedings instituted for a period of time equal to or greater than one third of the maximum prison term established by the Criminal Code for the offense that they were being tried for, shall be immediately released by the judge hearing the case” and “individuals who remain in custody awaiting judgment, for a period of time equal to or greater than one half of the maximum prison term for the crime they are being tried for, shall be immediately released by the criminal court hearing the case […]. […]The appellant has been tried in a criminal case for the offense set forth in Article 62 of the Law on Narcotic and Psychotropic Substances and has been sentenced to a prison term of eight years as a co-perpetrator […], which is currently under consideration.” It noted that “the punishment for the crime of illegal trafficking, under Article 62 of the Law on Narcotic and Psychotropic Substances is from 12 to 16 years; Eusebio Domingo Revelles has been in custody since August 2, 1994, in other words, for a period of four years and three months and seven days, and consequently, his situation is not covered in subsection two of Article 114 (as amended) of the Criminal Code.”86 101. With respect to subsection 8 of Article 24 of the Political Constitution, which establishes that pretrial detention may not exceed six months, in cases for crimes punished with minor prison terms, nor [may it exceed] one year, for crimes punished with longer terms of imprisonment, the Court held that This provision of the Constitution may take effect as of August 11, 1999 (…) by express mandate of the forty-fifth transitional provision which reads verbatim “the periods of time established in this Constitution shall count as of the date it takes effect, unless it is expressly determined otherwise.” The twenty eighth transitional provisional may not apply either, because it is only applicable for those individuals in custody for crimes punished with shorter jail terms and not longer prison terms as is [the term in] this case.”87 V. LEGAL ANALYSIS 102. Next, the Commission shall conduct the legal analysis based on the three claims brought by the petitioner: Firstly, the arrest and pretrial detention of the alleged victims; secondly, the facts purported to be violations of the right to humane treatment of the alleged victims and the investigation into these facts; and thirdly, the facts alleged to be violations of the right to a fair trial and judicial protection of Mr. Eusebio Domingo Revelles. 103. As to the third point, the Commission will only examine the situation of Eusebio Domingo Revelles, with regard to whom the criminal proceeding continued and about which information is available. Regarding the other alleged victims, the Commission has already concluded that not enough information is available to be able to find that the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies has been met with respect to the criminal proceedings brought against Messrs. Emmanuel Cano, Jorge Eliécer Herrera and Luis Alfonso Jaramillo. 86Annex 38. Constitutional Court, Second Chamber, Judgment of November 09, 1998. Annex to petitioner’s communication received on April 19, 1999. 87Annex 38. Constitutional Court, Second Chamber, Judgment of November 09, 1998. Annex to petitioner’s communication received on April 19, 1999. 26