41 had not established and recognized the procedural institution of the protection of civil rights. These two circumstances prevented an adequate protection of the right to judicial guarantees;” h) “procedural acts and decisions preliminary proceedings, like those in requests of Mr. […] Acosta Calderón, before any judge or higher court, since decisions;” issued within the processing of the which they kept silent regarding the were not susceptible to be appealed they were not identified as appealable i) the current legislation, included in Article 324 of the Code of Criminal Procedures of 2000, in force since July 2001 “is identical to the Code of 1983 in what refers to its effects,” limiting the possibility to appeal to, in some circumstances, a judicial revision by a higher judge or tribunal; j) “even though it’s true that the Constitution[,] with the [amendments made in] 1996 and the enacting of a new constitutional text in 1998[,] acknowledges the institution of the writ of amparo, it is also true that it has limitations that exceed the limitations permitted by the American Convention;” and k) in virtue of the norms of the Code of Criminal Procedures and the Constitution, “in the practice, protection when faced with any act that derives from the judicial function and that violates human rights is prevented, unless it is susceptible of a specific recourse.” This “leaves open the possibility, as in fact occurs, that persons[,] such as procedural subjects[,] not always have simple and prompt recourses that protect their rights and[,] specifically[,] that protect the right to judicial guarantees and the due process.” CONSIDERATIONS OF THE COURT 130. Article 2 of the Convention establishes that [w]here the exercise of any of the rights or freedoms referred to in Article 1 is not already ensured by legislative or other provisions, the States Parties undertake to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional proceedings and the provisions of this Convention, such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to those rights and freedoms. 131. Article 114 bis of the Criminal Code under study provides that [p]ersons who, having been kept in detention for a time equal or greater than one-third of the period established in the Criminal Code as the maximum sentence for the offense with which they are charged, have neither had their case discontinued nor been committed to trial, shall be immediately released by the judge hearing the case. Likewise, persons, who have been kept in detention without sentence for a time equal to or greater than half the period established by the Criminal Code as the maximum sentence for the offense with which they are charged, shall be released by the Criminal Court hearing the case. These provisions do not include persons charged with offenses punished under the Law on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances.