59 Arguments of the Commission 98. As to the alleged violation of Article 7 of the Convention, the Inter-American Commission stated that: a) The State violated Articles 7(1), 7(2), 7(3), 7(4), 7(5), and 7(6) of the Convention, regarding Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Wilson García-Asto and Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas; b) Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas and Wilson García-Asto were arrested without an arrest warrant issued by a competent authority and without observance to the rules of due process of law; c) The initial violation of Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas’ freedom did not cease in September 2000, but continued as at that moment no “final judgment had been rendered which definitely affect[ed] such right;” d) The detention of both alleged victims became illegal, violating Articles 7(1) and 7(2) of the Convention, as it did not take place in flagrante delicto as authorized by the Peruvian Constitution and the Peruvian law; instead, it was the result of the whims of Police officers who sought to justify their intervention in evidentiary circumstances they could not establish, as they are not judicial authorities. Neither did they have a written warrant issued by a judge, as required by the Political Constitution of Peru; e) The detention of Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas becomes arbitrary, and, consequently, in violation of Article 7(3) of the Convention, in light of the new jurisprudential and legal developments of anti-terrorist legislation of Peru, the Judgment of January 3, 2003 rendered by the Constitutional Court, and Legislative Decree No. 926 of February 2003; f) Article 4 of Legislative Decree No. 926 of February 19, 2003 violates “the rights of the defendants to be tried within a reasonable time or be released pending trial, as the new legislation -to the effects of provisional freedom- does not take into account the number of years that those people for whom annulment of judgment has been declared remained in custody;” g) The way in which the actual time of deprivation of freedom is computed to create a fiction of a new preventive detention by virtue of new proceedings is arbitrary and violates the guarantee of Article 7(3) of the American Convention in a current and continuous manner. The term of almost fourteen years during which Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas has been held in custody, without a final judicial decision, is not relevant for the State of Peru, apart from being in itself “excessive, unreasonable, and disproportionate;” h) The accused, whose innocence is presumed, must enjoy the exercise of physical freedom, while their deprivation must be ordered only in those cases where the success of the criminal proceedings is at stake, either because there is an intent to hamper the evidentiary activity or to avoid the application of punishment. This orientation is not reflected in the judicial decisions adopted along the new proceedings brought against Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas, and as a result, the