97. In addition, the Court notes that the said article 10 of Law No. 24,390 only established that the automatic release provided for in article 1 of that law would not be applied to those individuals accused of drug-trafficking offenses. However, the said article 10 did not establish a prohibition on eventually granting provisional release to a person accused of drug-trafficking offenses. The Court notes that, even assuming the validity of the provision under article 10 that the maximum limit of preventive detention was not applicable, the respective court had the obligation to indicate and substantiate, on an individual basis, the presumptions that still existed for the measure of deprivation of liberty to be considered appropriate, necessary and proportionate for the legitimate aim pursued. (iii) Conclusion 98. Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that the State is responsible for the violation of Articles 7(1), 7(3), 7(5), 8(2) and 24 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument. In addition, the Court notes that the said unequal treatment provided to Mr. Jenkins was a result of the application of article 10 of Law No. 24,390. Even though the State has argued that, on June 15, 2010, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation declared that this article was unconstitutional100 and, as indicated by the State in its answering brief, this has served as an “interpretive standard for the country’s other courts,” the fact is that this Court does not have sufficient evidence to determine whether or not the said article is currently in force. Consequently, the Court declares that the State also failed to comply with the obligation to eliminate laws and practices of any nature that result in violations of the guarantees established in the Convention,101 in violation of Article 2 of the American Convention. b.3 Effectiveness of the remedies to challenge the deprivation of liberty 99. Lastly, in relation to the arguments concerning the effectiveness of the remedies filed by Mr. Jenkins to request his release, the Court recalls that Article 7(6) of the Convention protects the right of anyone who is deprived of liberty to have recourse to a competent judge or court in order that it may decide on the lawfulness of his detention and, if applicable, order his release. The Court has interpreted that this right is addressed at permitting judicial control over deprivations of liberty and corresponds to the application for habeas corpus.102 100. The Court considers that, in the instant case, the reasoning of the domestic decisions and the grounds for the protracted nature of the measure of preventive detention that were analyzed previously and considered arbitrary resulted in the ineffectiveness of the remedies filed by Mr. Jenkins’ defense counsel. Consequently, the State is also responsible for violating Article 7(6) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument. VIII-2 RIGHT TO JUDICIAL GUARANTEES AND JUDICIAL PROTECTION103 101. In this chapter, the Court will examine the arguments concerning the violation of a reasonable time in the context of the action for damages filed by Mr. Jenkins, allegedly violating Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument. Cf. Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation in the case of Veliz, Linda Cristina ref/ case No. 5640, Application for judicial review, V. 210. XLI, of June 15, 2010 (evidence file, folios 5659 to 5661). 100 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 207, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 259. 101 Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of January 19, 1995. Series C No. 20, para. 82, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 72. 102 103 Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. 26