338. The decisions that denied the request for review did not cite any legitimate purpose to maintain the pre-trial detention, so that the situation indicated in the preceding paragraphs remained unchanged. 339. Consequently, the Court finds that the judges failed to justify the decision to impose or maintain the pre-trial detention based on a legitimate purpose such as the existence of a procedural risk in the specific case. c) Inadequate periodic review 340. The judicial decisions denying the requests for review did not comply adequately with the function of analyzing whether it was pertinent to maintain the detention measures. The statements that “there is no new information to review” and that “there is no information that would allow it to be presumed that the circumstances have changed that made pre-trial detention advisable,” reveal an erroneous notion based on considering that it would be necessary to prove that the initial circumstances had changed, instead of understanding that it is the judge’s task to analyze whether circumstances subsist that mean that the pre-trial detention should be maintained and is a proportionate measure to achieve the procedural objective sought. The judicial decisions ignored the need to justify and to provide the reasons for maintaining the precautionary measure imposed, and failed to mention any procedural objective that would have required maintaining it. Moreover, in one case, the decision to maintain the pre-trial detention was adopted without any justification. 341. With regard to the judicial decision of June 23, 2003, that maintained the pre-trial detention of Jaime Marileo Saravia, Juan Ciriaco Millacheo Licán, Juan Patricio Marileo and Patricia Troncoso Robles, it did not contain an explanation of the information to which it refers that “does not change the circumstances that made the pre-trial detention advisable,” and disregarded the fact that the review of the pre-trial detention imposed entailed justifying and providing the reasons for the need to maintain it. This was particularly serious in the instant case, because the initial adoption of the precautionary measure did not comply with any of the treaty-based requirements (supra paras. 334, 335 and 337). Furthermore, when maintaining the measure, the court did not explain which procedural objectives it was referring to and why there was no other precautionary measure that “permitted ensuring the objectives of the proceedings.” In this regard, article 155 of the Criminal Procedural Code, to which the defense referred, established another seven personal precautionary measures that could be imposed either separately or together, among other matters, “to ensure the success of the investigation” and “to ensure the appearance of the accused at the different stages of the proceedings or for the execution of judgment,” which, it would seem, were not considered by the judicial authority. d) Presumption of innocence 342. In view of the fact that their criminal responsibility had not yet been established legally, the presumed victims had the right to be presumed innocent, pursuant to Article 8(2) of the American Convention. This gave rise to the State’s obligation not to restrict their freedom more than strictly necessary, because pre-trial detention is a precautionary rather than a punitive measure. Consequently, the State restricted the freedom of Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia, José Benicio Huenchunao Mariñán, Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia, Juan Ciriaco Millacheo Licán and Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles without respecting the right to the presumption of innocence and violated their right not to be subject to arbitrary imprisonment established in Article 7(3) of the Convention. *** 343. Based on the above, it must be concluded that the State violated the rights to personal liberty, not to be subject to arbitrary arrest, and not to suffer pre-trial detention in conditions that were not adapted to international standards, established in Article 7(1), 7(3) and 7(5) of 118