42 132. As the Court has maintained, the States Parties to the Convention may not order measures that violate the rights and freedoms recognized therein.84 133. Whereas the first two provisions of Article 114 bis of the Ecuadorian Criminal Code granted detained persons the right to be released when the conditions indicated exist, the last paragraph of the same article contains an exception to that law. 134. In previous cases, it has been proven before the Court that on December 16, 1997 the Constitutional Court of Ecuador declared Article 114 bis of the Criminal Code unconstitutional.85 This decision was published on December 24, 1997. However, pursuant to that alleged by the representatives, on December 18, 1997 an amendment was introduced to the Code of the Execution of Judgments in which allegedly a discriminatory provision was included (supra para. 129(f)). In this regard, this Tribunal considers that the examination within the present Judgment of the scope of the amendments of December 18, 1997 alleged by the representatives does not proceed, because they came into force after the facts of the present case had occurred, since Mr. Acosta Calderón was released on July 29, 1996. 135. The Court considers, as it has maintained in other cases,86 that the exception stated in Article 114 bis of the Criminal Code, in force when the facts occurred, did not grant a certain category of defendants access to a right enjoyed by the majority of the prison population. In the specific case of Mr. Acosta Calderón this rule caused him undue harm. The Court further observes that, in its opinion, this law violates per se Article 2 of the American Convention, whether or not is was enforced in the instant case. 136. This Tribunal considers that, contrary to that stated by the Commission and the representatives, enforcement of Article 121 of the Law of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, that came into force on September 17, 1990 in the sense that “the ruling in which the preventive detention was reversed would not have effects […] if it is not confirmed by a higher court, prior obligatory and favorable report of the Office of the Public Prosecutor,” is not within the framework of the facts of the instant case. When the First Court of Criminal Matters of Lake Agrio referred the dismissal in favor of Mr. Acosta Calderón to a higher court for their opinion it did not specify which Law was applicable, stating only “[t]o be consulted as ordered by Law to the H. Superior Court of Quito regarding the validity of this ruling of temporary dismissal of the process and the mentioned accused party.” Because of the above, this Court will not issue a ruling on this argument. 137. This Tribunal also is aware that the Ecuadorian Political Constitution of 1998 in its Article 24(8) established that “[I]n any case, and without any exception, having issued the ruling of dismissal or acquittal, the detainee will immediately recover his freedom, without detriment to any pending consultation or recourse,” reason for which it does not consider it necessary to offer additional consideration to the arguments of the Commission and the representatives regarding Article 121 of the Law of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. 84 Cfr. Case of Suárez Rosero, supra note 60, para. 97; and International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Arts. 1 and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of December 9, 1994. Series A No. 14, para. 36. 85 Cfr. Case of Suárez Rosero. Reparations. Judgment of January 20, 1999, para. 82. 86 Cfr. Case of Suárez Rosero, supra note 60, para. 98.