II. Pretrial detention In this opinion I also wish to express my disagreement with the eleventh, twentieth and twenty-second operative paragraphs 38 of the judgment. First, it should be noted that the judgment states that “the extension of Mr. Martínez’s pretrial detention by the trial court may have been legal, since apparently, the case law of the Constitutional Chamber allowed the extension of pretrial detention based on Article 329 of the CPP” 39 and that “in the conviction, Mr. Martínez’s pretrial detention was extended for another six months and that, in a ruling of February 29, 2008, it was extended for a further two months, which was permitted by Article 378 of the CPP.” 40 Secondly, I also draw attention to the fact that, according to the judgment, the State has an “obligation to not restrict the liberty of a detained person beyond the limits strictly necessary to ensure that he does not interfere with the proceedings or evade the action of justice.” 41 Third, it is important to bear in mind that the judgment criticizes the fact that the victim’s pretrial detention was made subject to “the duration of the proceedings.” 42 Moreover, it is by virtue of the foregoing, and invoking the pro homine principle, that the judgment declares that “pretrial detention became the rule for Mr. Martínez” 43 and that this “exceeded the limits of reasonableness.” 44 Thus, by proceeding in this manner, the judgment does not adequately consider that the detention ordered in this case was carried out, as it indicates, in accordance with the law 14. The State is not responsible for the violation of the presumption of innocence established in Article 8(2) of the American Convention to the detriment of Group 4 (Jorge Martínez Meléndez), pursuant to paragraph 390 of this judgment. 15. The State is not responsible for the violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time established in Article 8(1) of the American Convention to the detriment of Group 4 (Jorge Martínez Meléndez), in the terms of paragraphs 419 to 429 and 456 of this judgment. 16. The State is not responsible for the violation of the right to defense established in Article 8(2) of the American Convention to the detriment of the members of Group 3 (Luis Archbold Jay and Enrique Archbold Jay); of Group 4 (Jorge Martínez Meléndez), in the terms of paragraphs 436 a 456 of this judgment. 17. The State is not responsible for the violation of the right to defense contained in Article 8.2.f of the American Convention to the detriment of Group 4 (Jorge Martínez Meléndez), in the terms of paragraphs 450 to 452 and 458 of this judgment. 18. The State is not responsible for the violation of the right to appeal the legality of a detention contained in Articles 7(6) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Group 4 (Jorge Martínez Meléndez), in the terms of paragraphs 370 to 372 of this judgment. 19. The State is not responsible for the violation of the right to personal integrity contained in Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Group 8 (Damas Vega Atencio), in the terms of paragraphs 459 to 465 of this judgment. 38 Supra Footnote N°8. 39 Para. 367. 40 Para. 368. 41 Para. 367. 42 Idem. 43 Para. 367. 44 Para. 368. 16