5 The judges, who are in charge of directing the proceeding, always have the duty to ensure proper compliance with the law. This has been established by the Inter-American Court: “In light of the above, the Court deems that the judges, who are in charge of directing the proceeding, have the duty to direct and channel the judicial proceeding with the aim of not sacrificing justice and due process to formalism and impunity.” 5 This means that, necessarily the Inter-American Court must consider the functioning of the respondent State’s domestic judicial organs, as established in the Juan Humberto Sánchez case: “In order to clarify whether the State has violated its international obligations owing to the acts of its judicial organs, the Court may have to examine the respective domestic proceedings,” 6 so as to establish whether all the procedures were in accordance with the international provisions to which the respondent State is a signatory. Articles 15 and 18 of the Paraguayan Code of Civil Procedure establish the supervisory powers (facultades ordenatorias) of the judges and the obligation to apply the Constitution in the first place. Failure to comply with this can even lead to a sanction, as established in Act 1084, pursuant to the principle of the priority of the laws established in article 137 of the Constitution 9. The domestic process is not exhausted as regards reparation for nonpecuniary and pecuniary damage; moreover, no claim has even been filed; nevertheless, for the reasons set out above, it is necessary to stipulate the amount. The case records clearly show that Article 8 of the American Convention on Human Rights (Right to a Fair Trial) has been violated, by arbitrarily maintaining a restrictive measure without valid legal grounds. This arbitrariness is also clear from the sentences delivered in the case, all of them much shorter than the duration of the restrictive measures. Hence, the right established in Article 10 of the American Convention materializes. Furthermore, and we repeat this, maintaining a precautionary measures for years is not in keeping with any of the principles and guarantees at stake: due process of law (Articles 16 and 17 of the Constitution), presumption of innocence (Article 17(1)), reasonableness of judicial decisions (Article 8 of the Convention) and Article 46 and ff. of the Inter-American Convention. According to the principles established by the Inter-American Court for determining the reasonableness of the duration of a proceeding: 7 a) complexity of the case, b) procedural activity of the interested party, and c) conduct of the judicial authorities, it is not possible to consider as valid a precautionary measure that was in force for over eight years and proceedings that continued even longer, to then reach a judicial decision annulling all the previous proceedings. 5 Case of Myrna Mack-Chang, para. 211. 6 ICourtHR. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez, para. 120, Judgment of June 7, 2003. 7 Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin. Judgment of June 21, 2002.