40. Thus, any decision to restrict the right to personal liberty through the imposition of pretrial detention must be justified by sufficient grounds in each instance to determine if said detention meets the requirements for its application.40 41. At the same time, Article 7(5) of the American Convention imposes time limits on pretrial detention and, consequently, on the power of the State to protect the purposes pursued by the proceeding with this type of precautionary measure. As the Inter-American Court has held, “[w]hen the duration of pretrial detention exceeds a reasonable time, the State can restrict the liberty of the accused by other measures that are less harmful than deprivation of liberty.”41 The Court has indicated that even when there are reasons to keep someone in pretrial detention, the period of detention should not exceed what is reasonable.42 42. As regards the need for periodic review of the grounds for pretrial detention and its duration, the Court has stated that: pretrial detention or imprisonment should be subject to periodic review, so that it is not prolonged when the reasons that supported it no longer exist .... Whenever it appears that pretrial detention does not meet those conditions, release should be ordered, without prejudice to the continuation of the proceedings.43 43. Besides its effects on the exercise of the right to personal liberty, both the Commission and the Court have stated that improper use of pretrial detention may undermine the principle of presumption of innocence contained in Article 8(2) of the American Convention. In that connection, the Commission has underscored the importance of the criterion of reasonableness, since to keep someone deprived of liberty beyond a time that is reasonable to accomplish the ends that justified their detention would be tantamount, in effect, to a premature punishment.44 44. The IACHR has said the following with respect to unreasonably long pre-trial detention: In addition, the risk of inverting the presumption of innocence increases with an unreasonably prolonged pre-trial incarceration. The guarantee of presumption of innocence becomes increasingly empty and ultimately a mockery when pre-trial imprisonment is prolonged unreasonably, since presumption notwithstanding, the severe penalty of deprivation of liberty which is legally reserved for those who have been convicted, is being visited upon someone who is, until and if convicted by the courts, innocent.45 (…) 40 IACHR, Report on the Use of Preventive Custody in the Americas, OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 46/13. December 30, 2013 par. 21. I/A Court H.R., Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of November 17, 2009, Series C No. 206, par. 120. 41 42 I/A Court H.R., Case of Argüelles et al. v. Argentina, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 288, par. 122. 43 I/A Court H.R., Case of Argüelles et al. v. Argentina, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 288, par. 121. 44 IACHR, Report No. 2/97, Case 11.205, Merits, Jorge Luis Bronstein et al., Argentina, March 11, 1997, par. 12; IACHR, Third Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Paraguay, OEA/Ser./L/VII.110. Doc. 52, adopted on March 9, 2001, Ch. IV, par. 34. See also: I/A Court H.R., Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras, Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, par. 69; I/A Court H.R., Case of Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador, Judgment of June 24, 2005, Series C No. 129, par. 111; I/A Court H.R., Case of Tibi v. Ecuador, Judgment of September 7, 2004, Series C No. 114, par. 180; I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute” v. Paraguay, Judgment of September 2, 2004, Series C No. 112, par. 229; I/A Court H.R., Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador, Judgment of November 12, 1997, Series C No. 35, par. 77. 45 IACHR, Report No. 12/96. Argentina. Case 11.245, March 1, 1996, par. 80. 8