49 124. Arguments of the representatives: a) the State violated Article 8(1) of the Convention by imprisoning Mr. Alfredo López Álvarez for more than six years and four months, as well as for not observing the reasonable time for the issuing of a judgment; b) the excessive duration of the preventive detention of Mr. López Álvarez is a violation to the presumption of innocence; c) the authorities did not comply with the legal times for the processing of the trial, which produced an excessive delay in the decision of the case, and d) Mr. López Álvarez was not provided with legal representation during the first moments of his arrest, nor at the time of his statement; nor was he assigned a public defender when he did not have an attorney; besides, he was coerced into declaring himself guilty of the crime he was being charged with. 125. Arguments of the State: a) the state authorities showed good faith in deciding on the present case. It tried to prevent the Attorney General of the Republic from presenting an appeal for annulment before the maximum Court of Justice. The immediate release of Mr. López Álvarez could only be granted after the discontinuance of the appeal for annulment; b) the trial against Mr. López Álvarez was processed with all the guarantees and rights granted by law, and there is no evidence that his rights were violated. For example, the Appellate Court of la Ceiba annulled ex officio part of the accusations as a consequence of the alleged substitution of the substance seized for another powder, which determined the issuing of an acquittal, and c) during the validity of the legislation prior to the year 2002 there was no immediacy, the judicial proceedings were not always practiced by judges, but by other judicial employees, however this did not occur in the case of Mr. Alfredo López Álvarez. Considerations of the Court a) Reasonable time of the criminal process 126. Article 8(1) of the American Convention states that [e]very person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature. 127. Article 25(1) of the Convention establishes that [e]veryone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention,