78 their place of residence in the city of Quito; return of minor Sarah Vachon to France, where she remained over two years far from her family; visits to the Penitenciaría del Litoral by minor Jeanne Camila Vachon, who after witnessing a riot in the prison refused to visit her stepfather again; lack of a father figure for minor Lisianne Judith Tibi during her first two years of life; and lack of contact of Mr. Tibi with his son Valerian Edouard Tibi. Some of these circumstances continued even after Mr. Tibi’s release and his return to France, for which reason this Court deems that Mr. Tibi’s unlawful and arbitrary detention contributed to break-up of the family nucleus and to frustration of personal and family plans. 162. As a consequence of the foregoing, the Court finds that the State breached Article 5(1), 5(2), 5(4) of the American Convention, in combination with Article 1(1) of that same Convention, and failed to comply with the obligations set forth in Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture, to the detriment of Daniel Tibi; and breached Article 5(1) of the American Convention, in combination with Article 1(1) of that same Convention, to the detriment of Beatrice Baruet, Sarah and Jeanne Camila Vachon, Lisianne Judith Tibi and Valerian Edouard Tibi. 163. In regards to the pleading by the Commission and by the representatives of the alleged victim and his next of kin regarding violation of Article 2 of the Convention, this Court deems that the facts of the case are not consistent with the conditions set forth in said provision. XI VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION (RIGHT TO FAIR TRIAL) Pleadings of the Commission 164. In regards to the alleged violation of Article 8 of the Convention, the Commission argued that: a) the right to be heard within a reasonable term, pursuant to Article 8(1) of the Convention, seeks to avoid protracted periods in which the accused remain in that situation and to ensure that charges are brought promptly. Reasonable term must be calculated beginning with the first act of the criminal proceeding, which is the arrest of the accused, and until an order for execution of judgment is issued; b) “[t]he State has provided no explanation of the protracted detention, and the facts do not reveal any clues that justify the authorities’ presumption that the accused was guilty and not innocent, whilst Ecuadorian legislation and the American Convention require the presumption of innocence;” c) the principle of presumption of innocence derives from the obligation of the State not to restrict the detainee’s liberty beyond the strictly necessary limits, to ensure that he will not impede efficient investigation and that he will not avoid law enforcement. Furthermore, preventive deprivation of liberty is a precautionary measure, not a punitive one; d) Daniel Tibi received no prior and detailed communication regarding the charges against him, “as he twice learned unofficially of the charges,” which