which has considered that the principle of double instance is satisfied with the special appeal in cassation,” for which it cited and transcribed the decisions issued in previous rulings. 486 B.4.3. Conclusion 345. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds no grounds to declare a violation of Article 8(2)(h) in relation to Article 8(1) of the American Convention with respect to Miguel Mora Calvo, since each of the claims made in the appeals for cassation and review analyzed were addressed by the Costa Rican courts that heard them through well-reasoned decisions. VIII.II RIGHT TO PERSONAL LIBERTY (Article 7 of the American Convention) A. Arguments of the parties and the Commission 346. The Commission argued that Jorge Martínez Meléndez was subject to pretrial detention for a total period of 4 years and 9 months, and that the court that extended the pretrial detention acknowledged that the legal term had been exceeded, although it should be “exceptionally extended,” a situation that was later endorsed by the Constitutional Chamber. Consequently, the failure to observe the legal time limit established in the Code of Criminal Procedure as the maximum for pretrial detention constituted, in addition to a violation of the legality of the deprivation of liberty contained in Article 7(2) of the Convention, an indicator that the pretrial detention was excessive and, therefore, in violation of Article 7(5) thereof. The Commission pointed out that the judicial authorities who endorsed such non-compliance with the legal time limit did not provide arguments to explain the procedural objectives pursued by continuing the pretrial detention during the trial stage. Thus, it concluded that the State violated the right to personal liberty established in Articles 7(1), 7(2) and 7(5) of the American Convention. 347. The Factum Consorcio representatives argued that the State violated Article 7(2) and 7(3) of the Convention, to the detriment of Mr. Martínez, by extending the term of his pretrial detention beyond the limits permitted by its own legislation and in a highly exceptional manner. This was based on an irregular interpretation of Article 258 of the CCP and on the grounds that this was a complex case. In this regard, they argued that the alternative measure of imprisonment that the State imposed on Mr. Martínez on February 23, 1999 was never breached, since when he applied for political asylum in Canada that measure would have expired. Thus, his request for political asylum in Canada cannot be considered as an act of escape or evasion and, therefore the indefinite pretrial detention applied to him would not be justified. They also indicated that the State violated Article 7(5) of the Convention because the criminal proceedings against Mr. Martínez lasted for more than 10 years, most of which he spent in pretrial detention. 348. According to the representatives, the State also violated Article 7(6) of the Convention by maintaining the detention, even though it was illegal. They pointed out two situations in which the habeas corpus remedy was ineffective. The first, because decision No. 2005-01667 of the Constitutional Chamber stipulated a maximum term of 36 months of pretrial detention for Mr. Martínez, yet the State extended it to 57 months, which they considered to be in breach of domestic law and excessive. The second, in relation to a writ of habeas corpus declared admissible on February 1, 2008, in which the Constitutional Chamber justified Mr. 486 Cf. Decision No. 2006-000052 of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of January 6, 2006, (evidence file, folio 20640). 112