not interfere with the proceedings or evade the action of justice. 525 Because the Constitutional Chamber did not ensure that this measure was subject to these purposes, but rather to the duration of the proceedings, pretrial detention became the rule for Mr. Martinez. Therefore, his detention became arbitrary. 368. Finally, this Court notes that in the conviction, Mr. Martínez’s pretrial detention was extended for another six months 526 and that, in a ruling of February 29, 2008, 527 it was extended for a further two months, which was permitted by Article 378 of the CCP. Thus, Mr. Martínez’s pretrial detention lasted a total of four years and nine months. Regarding the alleged unreasonableness of this period, the Court notes that, in the present case, the time limits of the preventive detention were set based on a certain procedural act, i.e. the imminent holding of the trial and issuance of the judgment. However, the judgment was not issued until 13 months later, and there is no evidence that the need for Mr. Martinez to continue in preventive detention was reviewed during that period. Therefore, this preventive measure also exceeded the limits of reasonableness. 369. In view of the foregoing, this Court considers that the State violated Articles 7(1), 7(3) and 7(5) of the Convention, to the detriment of Jorge Martínez Meléndez. B.2. Article 7(6) of the Convention 370. Article 7(6) of the Convention protects the right of all persons deprived of liberty to challenge the legality of their detention before a competent judge or court, so that the latter may decide, without delay, on the lawfulness of their arrest or detention and, if necessary, order their release. 528 The Court has emphasized that that the authority that must decide on the legality of the arrest or detention must be a judge or court. Thus, the Convention ensures that the deprivation of liberty is under judicial control. It has also stated that the means to challenge a detention “must not only exist formally in law, but must also be effective, that is, they must fulfill the objective of obtaining without delay a decision on the legality of the arrest or detention.” 529 371. First, as already noted, in the instant case Mr. Martínez filed a writ of habeas corpus against his pretrial detention, which was resolved by the Constitutional Chamber on June 23, 2006. The Court has already analyzed the actions of the Constitutional Chamber in relation to Articles 7(1), 7(3) and 7(5) and does not have other elements to assess the alleged ineffectiveness of the remedy, beyond the fact that its outcome did not comply with the aforementioned parameters of the Convention. 372. Second, in decision No. 2008-01650 of February 1, 2008, the Constitutional Chamber declared admissible the writ of habeas corpus filed by Mr. Martínez’s defense on January 24, 2008, and ruled that “the appellant was detained without any resolution legitimately ordering his deprivation of liberty” between January 17 and 29, 2008. Therefore, it ordered the State 525 130. Cf. Case of Suarez Rosero v. Ecuador, para. 77, and Case of Argüelles et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. Cf. Judgment No. 680-2007 of the Trial Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José, of July 17, 2007 (evidence file, folio 35363). 527 This decision is not included in the case file, but is mentioned in decision No. 2008-01650 of the Constitutional Chamber, of February 1, 2008 (evidence file, folio 2174). 528 Cf. Habeas Corpus under Suspension of Guarantees (Arts. 27.2, 25(1) and 7(6) of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-8/87 of January 30, 1987, para. 33; Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2010. Series C No. 218, para. 124, and Case of Pollo Rivera et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 130. 529 Cf. Case of Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No.129, para. 97, and Case of Galindo Cárdenas et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 2, 2015. Series C No. 301, para. 218. 526 119