29 7, 1995, stating that “the complaints of judicial error raised by the defense via this type of exceptional proceedings ha[d] already been argued in the pleadings by the defense in the appropriate procedural venue.” The Chamber added that the judgment being challenged did not contain “any causal factor that might demonstrate a clear departure from applicable laws or total lack of grounds that might prevent its being held as a valid judicial act.” 115 96. On August 7, 1995 motions of grievance (recursos de queja) were lodged with the Supreme Court to challenge the denial of the appeals of exception. 116 The National Prosecutor General held on April 30, 1996 that the motions should be denied because they had already been settled by the National Chamber of Criminal Cassation.117 In the end, the motions of grievance were denied on April 28, 1998 by the Supreme Court, which held that they cited no grounds separate from those claimed in the appeal of exception that had already been denied.118 VIII MERITS 97. The Court will offer its analysis concerning violations of the following Convention-based rights in the instant case: (1) the right to personal liberty and the right to be presumed innocent, for the alleged victims who were detained, and (2) the right to a fair trial and the right to judicial protection. The Court will then give its view on the alleged violations of (3) freedom from ex post facto laws and (4) the political rights of some of the alleged victims. VIII-1 RIGHT TO PERSONAL LIBERTY AND RIGHT TO BE PRESUMED INNOCENT A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 98. The Commission stated that the Code of Military Justice did not set required time limits for the military court to resolve the situation of a person in detention. It added that because the alleged victims had been in pretrial detention for a length of time that exceeded reasonable limits, with no justification whatsoever, the State had violated articles 7(2) and 7(5) in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the Convention. 99. The Commission added in its final brief of observations that “a central precept for determining [whether] the pretrial detention was compatible with the American Convention is to understand the grounds on which these detentions were ordered and to verify whether these grounds remained in effect or changed after the State had ratified the American Convention.” Along these same lines, it noted that the pretrial detentions, which from the very beginning had been arbitrary, had continued despite the fact that the State was now under obligation to cease arbitrary actions. “[T]here is no disagreement that no regular review was conducted to determine whether the grounds that had led to the pretrial detentions of the victims were or were not compatible with the Convention.” It therefore concluded that, given that the arbitrariness continued even following ratification, the State was in violation of article 7 of the Convention. The Commission added in its final observations that, because the 115 Order of inadmissibility of the recursos extraordinarios by the National Chamber of Criminal Cassation, July 7, 1995 (evidence file, folios 1072 and 1073). 116 Motion of grievance by Mr. Giordano, Mr. Tomasek, Mr. Mercau, Mr. Arancibia, Mr. Argüelles, Mr. Cardozo and Mr. Muñoz; by Mr. Candurra; and by Mr. Morón and Mr. Aracena, all filed on August 7, 1995 (evidence file, folios 576 to 645, 1249 to 1262, and 2180 to 2185). 117 Decision by the National Prosecutor General, April 30, 1996 (evidence file, folios 859 and 860). 118 Decision by the Supreme Court, April 28, 1998 (evidence file, folio 2177).