109. In the words of the IACHR, the unreasonable delay in preventive detention: In addition, the risk of inverting the presumption of innocence increases with an unreasonably prolonged preventive incarceration. The guarantee of presumption of innocence becomes increasingly empty and ultimately a mockery when preventive imprisonment is prolonged unreasonably, since presumption notwithstanding, the severe penalty of deprivation of liberty which is legally reserved for those who have been convicted, is being visited upon someone who is, until and if convicted by the courts, innocent.196 (…) If the State is able to justify further holding of the accused in preventive incarceration, based on the suspicion of guilt, then it is essentially substituting preventive detention for the punishment.197 110. Respect for the right to the presumption of innocence also requires that the State should substantiate and demonstrate, clearly and with reasons, according to the merits of each specific case, the existence of valid requirements for the imposition of preventive detention.198 Consequently, the principle of presumption of innocence is also violated when preventive detention is imposed arbitrarily; or when its application is essentially determined, for example, by the type of offense, the likelihood of the penalty or the mere existence of reasonable evidence implicating the accused.199 111. Finally, the right established in Article 7.6 of the American Convention is not fulfilled by the mere formal existence of the available remedies. Such remedies must be effective, as their purpose under Article 7.6 is to obtain a prompt decision "on the legality [of] arrest or detention" and, if they were illegal, to obtain without delay, an order for release.200 2. Analysis of the Present Case 112. First, as regards the legality of the preventive detention, the Commission observes that Mr. Romero Feris was held in preventive detention between August 3, 1999 and September 11, 2002, that is, for three years, one month and eight days. As established in the evidence, according to the law on the duration of preventive detention, the maximum period is two years and, only in certain circumstances and by a wellfounded decision, can this time be extended for a further year. 113. In this regard, the IACHR notes that an August 1, 2001 decision extended Mr. Romero Feris’ preventive detention for eight months. It follows from the foregoing that: (i) Mr. Romero Feris was deprived of his liberty for one month and eight days in addition to the legal maximum of two years, with the one year extension; and (ii) that Mr. Romero Feris was deprived of his liberty for five months over and above the time set for his detention. Consequently, the length of Mr. Romero Feris’ preventive detention failed to comply with the terms established in applicable legislation. [… continuation] September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 229; I/A Court H.R Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 77. 196 IACHR. Report No. 12/96. Argentina. Case 11.245. March 1, 1996, para. 80. 197 IACHR. Report No. 12/96. Argentina. Case 11.245. March 1, 1996, para. 114. I/A Court H.R. Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Series C No. 207, para. 144. 198 199 IACHR. Report on the Use of Preventive Detention in the Americas. OEA/Ser.L/V/II. December 30, 2013. Para. 137. 200 I/A Court H.R. Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Merits. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35. Para. 63. 27