compliance with the inter-American standards, and (ii) the alleged violation of a reasonable time in the administrative proceedings for damages. VIII-1 RIGHT TO PERSONAL LIBERTY AND JUDICIAL GUARANTEES57 60. In this chapter, the Court will examine the arguments concerning the violation of the right to personal liberty and judicial guarantees derived from Articles 7 and 8 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention, as a result of the preventive detention imposed on Mr. Jenkins from June 8, 1994, until November 19, 1999. A. Arguments of the parties and the Commission a.1 Initial order of preventive detention 61. The Commission argued, with regard to the reasons for the preventive detention imposed on Mr. Jenkins, that individualized reasons had not been provided regarding the procedural objectives sought by the preventive detention and, to the contrary, it was based on the existence of indications of responsibility, thus constituting advance punishment, rather than a precautionary measure. The Commission concluded that, from the outset, the preventive detention of Mr. Jenkins was arbitrary and disregarded the principle of the presumption of innocence in violation of Articles 7(3) and 8(2) of the Convention. 62. The representatives agreed with the Commission’s arguments. 63. The State did not make any specific arguments on this particular point. a.2 Duration of the preventive detention 64. Regarding the length of time that Mr. Jenkins was deprived of his liberty in preventive detention, the Commission stressed that during this lapse there had been no periodic review, ex officio, of the need to maintain the preventive detention. According to the Commission, the applicable legal framework – that is, article 10 of Law No. 24,390 which excluded offenses related to drugtrafficking from the application of the maximum term of preventive detention – revealed that the duration of the preventive detention of Mr. Jenkins was based on its automatic application and on the prohibition of release in the case of certain offenses, specifically drug-trafficking. In this regard, the Commission concluded that the duration of Mr. Jenkins’ preventive detention of three years and five months was excessive and this violated the principle of reasonableness established in Article 7(5) of the Convention. Furthermore, his detention constituted advance punishment in violation of the principle of the presumption of innocence established in Article 8(2) of the Convention. In addition, this time period was related to the criminal proceedings and, in view of the State’s failure to justify the duration of the preventive detention, the Commission also considered that, in light of the criteria repeatedly taken into account in inter-American case law, the guarantee of a reasonable time contained in Article 8(1) of the Convention had been violated. 65. Lastly, the Commission indicated that the application of article 10 of Law No. 24,390 established a differentiated treatment between individuals prosecuted for offenses related to drug-trafficking and individuals prosecuted for other offenses. According to the Commission, this difference in treatment was not justified because, in this specific case, the requirement of necessity was not met, so that its application and the consequent restriction of the exercise of the right to personal liberty were 57 Articles 7 and 8 of the American Convention. 17