Subsequently, on January 27, 2004, the same president of the NPCJ annulled the detención en firme ordered against Messrs. Villarroel Merino, López Ortiz, Ascázubi Albán, Coloma Gaibor and Vinueza Pánchez and confirmed their detention (supra para. 58). Detención en firme was also ordered for Mr. Cevallos Moreno but, on November 11, 2003, his release was ordered (supra para. 55). 81. Therefore, this demonstrated that Jorge Villarroel Merino, Jorge Coloma Gaibor, Fernando López Ortiz, Amílcar Ascázubi Albán and Patricio Vinueza Pánchez remained deprived of liberty in detención en firme for eight months, from May 26, 2003, to January 27, 2004. On the latter date the type of detention was changed to pre-trial detention until May 25, 2004, for the last four presumed victims. Jorge Humberto Villarroel Merino remained detained until June 4, 2004.97 In the case of Mario Romel Cevallos Moreno, the duration of the detención en firme was five months and seventeen days, from May 26, 2003, to November 13, 2003. 82. The foregoing reveals that, during the police criminal proceedings, the presumed victims were deprived of liberty under two procedures, which refer to the same situation, irrespective of what the detention is called. Therefore, the Court must examine whether the detención en firme and the pre-trial detention were in keeping with the standards that it has developed. 83. According to this Court’s case law, pre-trial detention is the most severe measure that can be imposed on a defendant; therefore, it should only be applied exceptionally. 98 In addition, the deprivation of liberty of a person who is accused of, or being prosecuted for an offense cannot be based on general or special preventive purposes, which could be attributed to the punishment.99 Consequently, the general rule should be that the accused faces the criminal proceedings in liberty.100 84. The Court has already indicated in its case law that the essential content of Article 7 of the American Convention establishes the protection of the individual against any arbitrary or unlawful interference by the State.101 The Court has also pointed out that this article contains two types of rules, one general and the other specific. The general type is defined in paragraph 1, while the specific type is found in paragraphs 2 to 7. Any violation of the latter paragraphs necessarily results in the violation of Article 7(1) of the American Convention.102 85. Article 7(2) of the American Convention establishes that “[n]o one shall be deprived of his physical liberty except for the reasons and under the conditions established beforehand by the Constitution of the State Party concerned or by a law established pursuant thereto.” This Court has firme, which constitutes an explicit violation, that does not admit doubts or interpretations.” Cf. Order to initiate a trial of the Supreme Court of Justice of October 13, 2006 (evidence file, fs. 2801 to 2825). In his brief requesting his release, Mr. Villarroel explained that “on June 13, 2003, [he] came forward to obey the order of pre-trial detention, and from that date until Friday, June 4, 2004, represents 358 days; in other words, the complete year referred to in art. 23.8 [(sic)] of the Constitution. […] [He asked] that orders be given to the Head of the Equitation and Remount Unit, tomorrow, June 4, 2004, at 24:00 hours (exactly midnight) when the said 358 days have been served: Commander of the Equitation and Remount Unit, please authorize my release (supra para. 61). 97 Cf. Case of the “Juvenile Re-education Institute” v. Paraguay. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 228, and Case of Carranza Alarcón v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 3, 2020. Series C No. 399, para. 65. 98 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 103, and Case of Hernández v. Argentina. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2019. Series C No. 395, para. 106. 99 Cf. Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 67, and Case of Carranza Alarcón v. Ecuador, supra, para. 65. 100 Cf. Case of the “Juvenile Re-education Institute" v. Paraguay, supra, para. 223, and Case of Carranza Alarcón v. Ecuador, supra, para. 60. 101 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Iñiguez v. Ecuador, supra, paras. 51 and 54, and Case of Carranza Alarcón v. Ecuador, supra, para. 60. 102 23