62 incarceration of Daniel Tibi, who was detained for almost 28 months (supra para. 90(18)). The Criminal Procedures Code established that “[t]he Judge may order preventive incarceration when he deems it necessary, if the following procedural facts are present: 1. Indicia that lead to presume the existence of a crime that merits deprivation of liberty; and 2. Indicia that lead to presume that the accused is the perpetrator of or an accomplice to the crime that is the object of the proceeding[…]” (Article 177). 106. The Court deems it indispensable to underline that preventive imprisonment is the most severe measure that may be applied to the person accused of a crime, for which reason its application must be exceptional, since it is limited by the principles of lawfulness, presumption of innocence, necessity, and proportionality, indispensable in a democratic society. 107. The State ordered the preventive imprisonment of Daniel Tibi, without sufficient indicia to presume that the alleged victim was the perpetrator of or an accomplice to any crime, and it did not prove the need for said measure. Therefore, this Court deems that Mr. Tibi’s preventive imprisonment was arbitrary and it constituted a violation of Article 7(3) of the Convention. 108. Subparagraphs 4, 5 and 6 of Article 7 of the American Convention establish positive duties that impose specific requirements both on the agents of the State and on third parties acting with its tolerance or acquiescence and who are responsible for the detention.130 109. This Court has established that Article 7(4) of the Convention sets forth a mechanism to avoid unlawful or arbitrary conduct from the very act of deprivation of liberty on, and to ensure defense of the detainee. Both the detainee and those representing him or with legal custody over him have the right to be informed of the motives of and reasons for the detention and about the rights of the detainee.131 110. The tenth United Nations Principle for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment states that [a]nyone who is arrested shall be informed at the time of his arrest of the reason for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him. 132. 111. In the sub judice case it has been proven that at the time of his detention, on September 27, 1995, Mr. Tibi was not informed of the true reasons for said detention, he was not notified of the charges against him and of his rights, and he was not shown the arrest warrant, which the First Criminal Judge of the Guayas issued one day later, September 28, 1995. The reason given to him was that it was migration control (supra para. 90.11). 130 See Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers. supra note 8, para. 91; Case of Maritza Urrutia. supra note 8, para. 71; and Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez . supra note 3, para. 81. 131 See Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 8, para. 92; Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 8, para. 72; and Case of Bulacio, supra note 129, para. 128. 132 United Nations, Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, supra note 126, Principle 10.