VIII.4 RIGHT TO PERSONAL LIBERTY (ARTICLE 7 OF THE CONVENTION) A. Arguments of the Commission and the parties 191. The Commission indicated that it does not have the decision that ordered the initial preventive detention in the ordinary and military jurisdictions, to be able to confirm the original reasons for the detention and whether procedural goals were sought. However, in the ordinary jurisdiction, in response to the alleged victim’s request for unconditional release, the authorities merely indicated that the alleged victim did not fully demonstrate his innocence under the terms of Article 201 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and pointed out the seriousness of the crime and the indications of liability. Regarding the criminal military jurisdiction, it noted that on August 9, 1995, the Permanent Military Judge of Tarapoto issued a definitive detention order for the alleged victim because “he recognized having received money from drug traffickers” and he was serving the detention order issued in the ordinary jurisdiction. The Commission concluded that no individual reasons were provided for the preventive detention in the ordinary or criminal jurisdictions; rather, it was based on the existence of indications of liability and the seriousness of the crime, which constitute an advanced sentence and not a precautionary measure. Therefore, it concluded that the State violated Articles 7(3) and 8(2) of the Convention. 192. Moreover, the Commission indicated that the duration of Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio’s preventive detention of over three years and six months was excessive,168 violating the principle of reasonableness set forth in Article 7(5) of the Convention, and that it constituted an advanced sentence that could be applied in the event of conviction, which infringes the principle of presumption of innocence enshrined in Article 8(2) of the Convention. According to the Commission, there is no evidence of a periodic review having been performed ex officio regarding the need to continue the preventive detention. As for the remedies filed by Mr. Villavicencio requesting his unconditional release, a review was not performed either. 193. Lastly, since the judicial remedies filed did not result in a timely and effective review of the reasons for and duration of the preventive detention, the State also violated Articles 7(6) and 25 of the Convention. 194. The representative agreed with that indicated by the Commission. 195. The State indicated that, regarding the Commission’s claim that it did not have the document that initially ordered the preventive detention, it is making a late request for access to evidence to include that controversy until now in the case before the Court. The preventive detention had adequate grounds and has not been questioned by the opposing party. 196. Regarding the decisions in the ordinary criminal proceedings that denied the request for unconditional release of Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio, those had adequate grounds and considered the applicable laws.169 From September 14, 1994 to June 30, 1998, date on which the Supreme Council of Military Justice signed his conviction. 169 According to the State: i) In order No. 62 of February 9, 1995, the Judge of Mixed First Instance declared inadmissible the request for unconditional release submitted by Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio, considering that set forth in Article 201 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That article indicates the requirement that must be confirmed in order to grant unconditional release (the suspect’s innocence); it makes no reference to other measures in favor of release of the suspect such as a hearing or release on bail, which are expressly recognized in the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the case at hand, it was evident that the compliance requirement was not fully confirmed; therefore, it was appropriate to deny his request for unconditional release, and ii) Regarding the order of April 24, 1995, which decided on the remedy filed against the order of February 9, 1995, both the Commission and the victim assumed that the situation of Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio and the codefendants was identical. For the State, it is justifiable to provide different grounds when there are differences between the codefendants. Furthermore, the opposing party seems to suggest that the seriousness of the 168 44