IACHR concludes that his detention lasted an unreasonable amount of time without any justification as per the Convention. 87. Additionally, the IACHR notes that for over half the time Mr. Montesinos was in pretrial detention, Article 114 of the Criminal Code was in force. According to said Article, motions for release were inadmissible for drug trafficking-related crimes, not on the basis of procedural ends but rather on the category of indictment. This provision regulates pretrial detention and admissibility of motions for release. Article 114 specifies that “individuals who are charged with crimes punishable under the Law on Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances are excluded from these provisions.” Moreover, this provision excluded some individuals from being released not on the basis of procedural aims, but rather on the category of the charge against them. The IACHR highlights that this provision was ruled unconstitutional on December 24, 1997. The Commission has ruled that laws establishing mandatory pretrial detention or the ban on release for certain kinds of offenses, in addition to constituting a violation of the right to personal liberty, also constitute a violation of the principal of equal protection under the law.90 88. In view of the explanations provided above in this section, the Commission concludes that Mr. Montesinos pretrial detention was arbitrary, lasted an unreasonable amount of time, had no procedural purpose, rather just a punitive one, and was discriminatory. Therefore, the State of Ecuador is responsible for violating Articles 7(3) 7(5), 8(2), and 24 of the American Convention in connection with to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. 3. The right to judicial oversight of pretrial detention 89. Article 7(5) of the Convention provides that anyone subject to detention is entitled to have a judicial authority review such detention, without delay, as an appropriate oversight measure to prevent arbitrary and illegal arrests. Immediate judicial oversight is a measure that can prevent detentions of an arbitrary or illegal nature, considering that it is judges’ responsibility under the rule of law to guarantee the rights of detainees, authorize the adoption of precautionary or coercive measures, when these are absolutely necessary, and ensure, in general, that the accused is treated in a manner consistent with the presumption of innocence.91 90. With regard to this guarantee, in its Report on the Human Rights of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas, the Commission has considered the following: [T]he single most important protection of the rights of a detainee is prompt appearance before a judicial authority responsible for overseeing the detention, and that the right to request a decision on the lawfulness of the detention is the fundamental guarantee of the constitutional and human rights of a detainee deprived of his liberty by agents of the State.92 91. Likewise, the Inter-American Court has held that “the terms of the guarantee set forth in Article 7(5) of the Convention are clear regarding the need for the detainee to be brought promptly before a Judge or competent judicial authority, in accordance with the principles of judicial control and procedural immediacy” in order to “protect the right to personal liberty and to protect other rights, such as the right to life and to humane treatment.” The Court has also specified that “the fact that a Judge is simply aware that a person is detained does not fulfill this guarantee, as the detainee must appear personally and give his statement before the Judge or competent authority.93 IACHR. Report No. 53/16. Case 12.056. Merits Report. Gabriel Oscar Jenkins. Argentina. December 6, 2016. Paragraph 149. I/A Court H.R. Case of Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, paragraph 61; and Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, paragraph 76. 92 IACHR, Report on the Human Rights of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas, December 31, 2011, paragraph 120. 93 I/A Court H.R. Case of Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, paragraph 61; and Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, paragraph 78. 90 91 16