A/HRC/4/40/Add.2 page 15 IV. AREAS OF CONCERN A. Discrepancies between the Constitution, the law and practice 64. In the opinion of the Working Group, there is a considerable discrepancy between the norms contained in the Constitution and some of the domestic laws and the practices that it observed. Despite the fact that the Constitution is the supreme law and takes precedence over any other law or regulation, some of the provisions of the Criminal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure and decisions taken by the national or provincial authorities weaken the constitutional guarantees. 65. The Working Group would like to express its concern about the rules contained in articles 10 and 16 of Act No. 2003-101, which amend articles 160 and 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. These articles establish that judges are obliged to order the detención en firme of a suspect without taking into consideration whether the constitutionally established time limit for pretrial detention has elapsed. Since no limit has been set for detención en firme, and considering that such a ruling is not subject to appeal, the detainee will thus have to remain in prison until conviction and sentencing. The country’s human rights and legal defence organizations have extensively challenged the introduction of detención en firme, as they consider it to be in open contradiction with article 24.8 of the Constitution. Under that article, even for the most serious crimes, pretrial detention must not exceed one year. 66. The Working Group would like to point out that detención en firme is actually a form of pretrial detention - the name that is used is immaterial - and that it establishes an indefinite period of detention that exceeds the limits established by the Constitution. It also undermines the discretionary power of judges to decide each separate case on its merits and specific characteristics and to take the measures that they deem to be the most appropriate, whether in the form of detention or alternative measures. Lastly, it affects the right of the accused to be presumed innocent until their guilt is proved. 67. In effect, detención en firme has brought about a situation in which thousands of people remain in detention for extended periods awaiting judgement, often for several years. Article 14, paragraph (c), of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights establishes that all persons must be judged without undue delay, or must be released. Over 64 per cent of the prison population is awaiting judgement in detention centres that are overcrowded to 170 per cent of their capacity. 68. While detención en firme is ordered systematically in Guayaquil and Quito, in Cuenca, judges make more use of the discretionary powers that they are given under the Constitution. The Working Group was informed that, with the exception of two particularly complex cases, the remaining detainees in Cuenca, the provincial capital of Azuay, had been judged and sentenced within the constitutionally established time frames. 69. The Working Group is also concerned about the increase in the number of sentences involving a deprivation of liberty for minor crimes and the suspension of certain sentence-reduction measures, which have been adopted as part of a policy aimed at getting tough with crime. For example, the “two-for-one” policy has been withdrawn. It had made it possible