24 Based on circumstantial evidence, it has been established the assistance provided by the citizens [...] and Oscar Barreto Leiva in the illegal transfer of dollars, to which a part of the two hundred and fifty millions bolivares (Bs. 250.000.000, 00) were subjected, as ordered by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in favor of the Ministry of the Secretary of the Presidency, which was made in two remittances dated March 17, 1989 and March 21, 1989, for five hundred thousand dollars ($ 500.000, 00) and two million dollars ($ 2.000.000, 00) respectively (emphasis omitted).60 114. From the reading of the arrest warrant, the Tribunal concludes that the State, through the SCJ, complied with the first aspect necessary to restrict the right to personal liberty by means of the precautionary measure, that is, to point out the sufficient circumstantial evidence that would allow to reasonably assume that the person subjected to the proceeding has participated in the illegal act under investigation. It is now appropriate to verify whether the State complied with the second aspect, this is, to base the precautionary measure on the legitimate purpose of ensuring that the accused shall not impede the conduct of the proceedings or elude justice (supra para. 111). 115. In this respect, the Court notes that the arrest warrant, in none of the 454 pages, mentions the need to order the preventive detention of Mr. Barreto Leiva based on sufficient circumstantial evidence, which would persuade the objective observer that the accused would impede the conduct of the proceedings or elude justice. The foregoing, coupled with the fact that the domestic legislation (supra para. 112) only required “well-founded indications of criminal responsibility”, without referring to the legitimate purpose that the precautionary measure must serve, leads the Tribunal to conclude that the preventive detention in the instant case was applied as a rule and not as the exception. 116. Consequently, the Tribunal declares that the State, by failing to give sufficient reasons regarding the achievement of a legitimate purpose in line with the Convention upon the issuance of the arrest warrant against Mr. Barreto Leiva, violated his right not to be subject to arbitrary detention, enshrined in Article 7(3)) of the Convention. Likewise, his right to personal liberty was infringed, as embodied in Article 7(1) of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) therein, inasmuch as "any violation of subparagraphs 2 to 7 of Article 7 of the Convention necessarily entails the violation of Article 7(1) thereof, because the failure to respect the guarantees of the person deprived of liberty leads to the lack of protection of that person’s right to liberty.”61 Finally, the Tribunal declares that the State failed to comply with its obligation embodied in Article 2 of the Convention, insofar as its domestic legislation did not establish sufficient guarantees of the right to personal liberty, since it allowed imprisonment based only on "indications of criminal responsibility", without establishing, also, that it is necessary for the measure to serve a legitimate purpose. 2. Reasonable time under preventive detention (Article 7(5)) and presumption of innocence (Article 8(2)) 117. The Commission indicated that the period of time Mr. Barreto Leiva endured under preventive detention was 16 days longer than the final sentence imposed. It asserted that the application of preventive detention ignored the principle of reasonable time and the guarantee of presumption of innocence enshrined in Articles 60 Court order issued by the SCJ on May 18, 1994 (record on merits, volume III, pages 1423, 1424 and 1428 and 1429). 61 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. V. Ecuador, supra note 58, para. 54.