the reasoned order of May 26, 2003, to which the officers of the National Police, Jorge Humberto Villarroel Merino, Mario Romel Cevallos Moreno, Jorge Enrique Coloma Gaibor, Fernando Marcelo López Ortiz, Leoncio Amílcar Ascázubi Albán and Alfonso Patricio Vinueza Pánchez, were subjected during the police criminal proceedings. Regarding the judicial guarantees, first, this Court will examine the alleged failure to provide the presumed victims with prior and detailed information of the charges and time to prepare their defense owing to the report entitled: “Indications of criminal responsibility from the special review of the administrative and financial operations of the National Police General Command,” Report No. 32-DA.1-2001-466, prepared prior to the filing of the police criminal proceedings. Then, the Court will examine the alleged violations of the judicial guarantees related to the police criminal proceedings: (a) the lack of competence and impartiality of the court that heard the case, and (b) the unreasonable duration of the police criminal proceedings. Lastly, it will address the alleged violation of judicial protection in relation to the claims for compensation filed by the presumed victims. 69. The Court notes that the representative indicated the violation of the rights to compensation and to protection of honor and dignity established in Articles 10 and 11 of the American Convention; however, he merely cited those rights without providing arguments or legal substantiation. Consequently, the Court does not have sufficient elements to examine the alleged violations of the rights recognized in Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention. VII-1 RIGHTS UNDER THE AMERICAN CONVENTION TO PERSONAL LIBERTY, PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE AND EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW, IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATION TO RESPECT AND TO ENSURE THESE RIGHTS AND THE DUTY TO ADOPT DOMESTIC LEGAL PROVISIONS93 70. In this chapter, the Court will examine the alleged violation of the right to personal liberty, and also the alleged violations of equality before the law and the guarantee of the lawfulness of the detention by means of an effective remedy. A. Deprivation of liberty of the presumed victims A.1 Arguments of the parties and the Commission 71. The Commission alleged the violation of the rights to personal liberty, presumption of innocence and equality before the law established in Articles 7(1), 7(2), 7(3), 7(5), 8(2) and 24 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument, to the detriment of Jorge Villarroel Merino, Mario Romel Cevallos Moreno, Jorge Coloma Gaibor, Fernando López Ortiz, Amílcar Ascázubi Albán and Patricio Vinueza Pánchez. The Commission indicated that the presumed victims were held in detención en firme from May 26, 2003, until January 27, 2004. When examining the implications of this measure, the Commission indicated that detención en firme was obligatory and automatic pre-trial detention based exclusively on the severity of the punishment attributed to the offense, the way in which it had supposedly been committed, and the procedural stage; that is, the fact that it was at the trial stage. 72. The Commission argued that the law that regulated detención en firme entailed a difference in treatment between individuals who complied with the circumstances described by the law and on whom this precautionary measure was imposed, compared to those who did not meet those requirements, and that this difference in treatment, since it related to a precautionary measure and not to a punishment, violated the right to personal liberty and presumption of innocence. It argued that, in this specific case, the application of detención en firme signified an arbitrary and 93 Articles 1(1), 2, 7(1), 7(2), 7(3). 7(5), 7(6), 8(2) and 24 of the American Convention. 20