to events before July 1, 1999, is related not only to the failure to observe Article 1 of the Convention, but also to the duty to adopt provisions of domestic law, established in its Article 2. The events appear to show that, after the date mentioned, even when the defense of the four persons who remained deprived of their liberty requested their release in the understanding that there was no danger of fleeing nor of obstructing the proceedings, that request was denied without offering grounds that would contradict the assertions of the defense. Therefore, the continued deprivation of liberty was arbitrary, in violation of Article 7(3) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Wilmer Antonio Barliza González, Fernando González, María Angélica González and Belkis Mirelis González. 120. On the other hand, given the presumption of innocence, a guarantee found in Article 8(2) of the Convention, there is a general rule that the accused should not be detained when involved in a criminal proceeding.138 It has already been stated that maintaining a person deprived of his liberty longer than a reasonable time for procedural reasons that justify detention for precautionary reasons is the equivalent of a punishment in advance, which is contrary to the presumption of innocence (supra para. 102). As long as preventive deprivations of liberty are ordered and maintained without complying with the aforementioned procedural purposes, they are contrary to that guarantee, from their beginning and during all of the time that they are in force. 121. Therefore, since the preventive deprivations of liberty were not based on legitimate procedural grounds, but on indicia of alleged criminal responsibility, they are a punishment in advance, in violation of the presumption of innocence, which is an infringement of Article 8(2), to the detriment of each of the victims preventively detained. While, before July 1, 1999, the lack of legitimate grounds was related to the domestic legal order in force at the time of the events, based on the application of Article 182 of the CCP, this violation of Article 8(2) is the failure to adopt provisions of domestic law, established in Article 2 of the Convention, in addition to being related to the failure to comply with the duty to respect the treaty-based rights, established in Article 1(1) of the treaty. 122. The Court observes that the representatives and the Commission also alleged the violation of Article 8(2) of the Convention, as well as Article 7(5), with respect to the length of the preventive deprivations of liberty of María Angélica González, Belkis González, Fernando González and Wilmer Barliza González, which was around 10 months in the first three cases and eight months in the fourth (supra para. 87).139 They alleged that the lengths of the deprivations of liberty were excessive given the lack of a periodic review of the substance of the valid treaty-based grounds for maintaining the measure. This aspect, the lack of a judicial periodic review of the measures of the preventive deprivation of liberty, has already been analyzed in relation to Article 7(3) of the Convention, relative to the arbitrariness of the deprivations of liberty and it was also Cf. Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 67 and Case of Carranza Alarcón v. Ecuador, para. 89. 138 The judicial decisions that ordered the preventive detentions were issued on December 10, 1998, in the first three cases, and on February 12, 1999, in the fourth. On January 8, 1999, the first three persons appealed their deprivation of liberty and the appeal was denied on January 28, 1999. Wilmer Barliza González appealed the decision of his preventive detention on March 5, 1999 and the appeal wa resolved by confirming the measure of preventive detention on April 21, 1999. On August 2, 1999, the representatives of the four victims requested an alternate measure of deprivation of liberty, based on the new Procedural Code, which was denied on August 16, 1999. The deprivations of liberty were extended until September 29, 1999, when the accused were acquitted. 139 33