innocence upheld in Article 8.2 of the American Convention. Here the importance of the "reasonableness" criterion has been stressed, because keeping a person detained for more than a reasonable period of time needed to comply with the purposes warranting his or her detention, de facto, means applying "premature punishment."68 72. As the IACHR points out, unreasonable prolongation of preventive custody: In addition, the risk of inverting the presumption of innocence increases with an unreasonably prolonged pretrial incarceration. The guarantee of presumption of innocence becomes increasingly empty and ultimately a mockery when pre-trial imprisonment is prolonged unreasonably, since presumption notwithstanding, the severe penalty of deprivation of liberty which is legitimately reserved for those who have been convicted, is being visited upon someone who is, until and if convicted by the courts, innocent..69 (…) If the use of that procedure by the State fails to assign blame within a reasonable length of time and the State is able to justify further holding of the accused in pre-trial incarceration, based on the suspicion of guilt, then it is essentially substituting pre-trial detention for the punishment.70 73. Observance of the right of presumption of innocence likewise requires that the State substantiate clearly and on good grounds in each concrete case the existence of valid prerequisites for allowing preventive custody.71 Thus, the principle of the presumption of innocence is violated when preventive custody is arbitrarily imposed; or else, when its application is essentially determined by the type of offense, the expected sentence, or the mere existence of circumstantial evidence implicating the accused.72 74. Regarding this guarantee, in its Report on the Situation of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas, the Commission considered the following: "[T]he single most important protection of the rights of a detainee is prompt appearance before a judicial authority responsible for overseeing the detention. And that the right to request a decision on the lawfulness of the detention is the fundamental guarantee of the constitutional and human rights of a detainee deprived of his liberty by agents of the State.73 75. Likewise, the Inter-American Court has pointed out that "the terms of the guarantee in Article 7(5) of the Convention are clear in what refers to the fact that the person arrested must be taken before a competent judge or judicial authority, pursuant to the principles of judicial control and procedural immediacy." This is" essential for the protection of the right to personal liberty and to grant protection to other rights, such as life and personal integrity." The Court has likewise specified that "the simple awareness of a judge that a person is detained does not satisfy this guarantee, since the detainee must appear personally and give his statement before the competent judge or authority."74 76. In the instant case, Mr. Cortez was in preventive custody between July 30 and December 19, 1997 and between February 28 and May 11, 2000. From the facts of the case it transpires that on neither occasion were individualized grounds provided regarding the procedural purposes pursued. Rather, it would appear that the grounds for those detentions were circumstantial indications of liability (indicios de responsabilidad). The above was consistent with the criminal procedure laws in force at the time which did not require said purposes for preventive custody. 68 IACHR Report No. 2/97, Case 11.205, Merits, Jorge Luis Bronstein et al, Argentina, March 11, 1997, par. 12Third Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Paraguay, OEA/Ser./L/VII.110. Doc. 52, March 9, 2001. Chapter IV, par. 34. See also: I/A Court HR. Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Judgment of February , 2006. Series C No. 141, par. 69; and Case of Acosta Calderón. Ecuador. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, par. 111. 69 IACHR, Report 12/96, Caso 11.245, Admissibility and Merits, Jorge Giménez, Argentina, March 1, 1996, para. 80. 70 IACHR, Report 12/96, Case 11.245, Admissibility and Merits, Jorge Giménez, Argentina, March 1, 1996, para. 114. 71 I/A Court HR. Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Series C No. 207, par. 144. 72 IACHR Report on the Use of Preventive Custody in the Americas. OEA/Ser.L/V/II. December 30, 2013, par. 137. IACHR, Report on the Human Rights of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas, December 31, 2011, par. 120. I/A Court HR. Case of Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, par. 61 [Tr: 78?]; and Case of Tibi v Ecuador. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, par. 78. 73 74 14