81 c) the detention of those convicted “cannot violate the presumption of innocence, as it was not excessive;” d) for purposes of the right being analyzed, it is sufficient to assert that “the records show that the next of kin of the [alleged] victim […] had legal assistance; and e) “[t]he facts of the case do not demonstrate that the petitioner was forced to plead guilty, except for a groundless testimony by Daniel Tibi himself, for which reason, as there is no ‘evidence of the facts in the records [...] the Court [must find] that the violation of Articles 8(2) and 8(3) of the American Convention was not proven’.” Considerations of the Court a) In regards to the principle of a reasonable term in the criminal proceeding against Mr. Tibi 167. Article 8(1) of the American Convention sets forth that: 1. Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature. 168. Reasonability of the term, as set forth in this provision, must be assessed in connection with the total duration of the proceeding, from the first procedural act until the order to execute the judgment. The Court has ruled that, in criminal matters, the term begins on the date when the individual is detained.159 When this measure is not applicable, but there is an ongoing criminal proceeding, said term begins when the judicial authority takes cognizance of the case. 169. Daniel Tibi was detained on September 27, 1995. Therefore, the term must be assessed from that moment on. This Court has also established that to decide on reasonability of the term, it is necessary to take into account that the proceeding ends when an unappealable judgment is issued on the matter, which exhausts the jurisdiction, and that, especially regarding criminal matters, said term must include the whole proceeding, including the appeals that may be filed.160 170. Article 242 of the Criminal Procedures Code of Ecuador established that: [i]f the Judge deems that existence of the crime has not been proven sufficiently, or that the former having been proven, those guilty of it have not been identified, or if there is insufficient evidence of participation of the suspect, he will order provisional dismissal of the proceeding and of the charges against the accused, stating that for the time being, substantiation of the proceeding cannot continue. 159 See Case of Suárez Rosero, supra note 145, para. 70; and likewise, Hennig v. Austria, No. 41444/98, para. 32, ECHR 2003-I; and Reinhardt and Slimane-Kaid v. France, 23043/93, para. 93, ECHR 1998-II. 160 See Case of Suárez Rosero, supra note 145, para. 71.