24 their arrest. Lastly, with regard to the Ion-Scanner test, they stated that their lawyers were notified of the decision ordering it on the day it was carried out, so they were unable to be present; also that, in order to carry out the first four appraisals (supra para. 110 to 113), the experts had had to place the ice chests seized with the drugs in the Plumavit machines to check whether or not they matched, so it was logical to suppose that drug pArticles from those chests contaminated the machines and that it was those pArticles that the Ion-Scanner detected. Based on this, on several occasions, they requested that the preventive detention be annulled.67 116. In general, the judge did not answer the many briefs submitted by the victims and, on the only occasion on which she did, she merely indicated that: “the petitions requesting the annulment of the order for their remand in custody are denied.”68 Regarding the Ion-Scanner test, she merely ruled that: “the objection was denied because it was inadmissible, […] since the judicial decision giving notice of this procedural act was opportunely notified to the parties,”69 without mentioning the alleged contamination of the machines. 117. The Court emphasizes that, in cases when individuals are detained, the judges do not have to wait until a judgment absolving them has been delivered for the detained persons to recover their liberty, but rather should assess periodically that the reasons and purposes that justified the deprivation of liberty subsist, whether the precautionary measure is still absolutely necessary in order to achieve these purposes, and whether it is proportionate. At any time that the precautionary measure does not meet any of these conditions, the release of those detained must be ordered. Likewise, when a request is received for the release of those detained, the judge must explain the grounds, even if very briefly, on which he considers that preventive detention should be maintained. 118. Moreover, the Court underscores that the grounds for the judicial decision must be provided to be able to guarantee the right to defense. Indeed, the reasoning offered by the judge must show clearly that the arguments of the parties have been duly taken into account and the body of evidence examined rigorously, particularly in cases in which important rights such as the liberty of the accused is involved. This did not occur in the instant case. The judge’s failure to state the grounds for her decision prevented the defense lawyers from knowing the reasons why the victims remained deprived of their liberty, and hampered their task of presenting new evidence or arguments in order to achieve the victims’ release or to contest crucial evidence against them in the best way possible. 119. Based on the above, the Court finds that the State violated the right of the victims 67 Brief submitted by Chaparro’s lawyer on December 11, 1997, requesting the annulment of the arrest warrant, based on the result of the ESPOL expert appraisal (judicial case file, volume 22, folios 3590-3593). Brief submitted by Chaparro’s lawyer on January 13, 1998, contesting the result of the Ion-Scan expert appraisal and requesting the annulment of the preventive detention (judicial case file, volume 26, folios 40954105). Brief submitted by Chaparro’s lawyer on February 25, 1998, contesting the result of the Ion-Scan expert appraisal and requesting the annulment of the preventive detention order (judicial case file, volume 30, folios 4619-4629). Brief submitted by Lapo’s lawyer on January 22, 1998, contesting the Ion-Scan, and requesting that statements be taken from the investigating agents and also the annulment of the preventive detention appraisal (judicial case file, volume 27, folios 4231-4234), and brief submitted by Lapo’s lawyer on February 27, 1998, indicating that the judge in the case had “not given [them] the opportunity of exercising the right to defense” since notification of the communication ordering the Ion-Scan arrived too late (judicial case file, volume 31, folio 4726). 68 Cf. judicial decision of January 12, 1998, issued by the Guayas Twelfth Criminal Judge (judicial case file, volume 26, folio 4072). 69 Cf. judicial decision of January 26, 1998 issued by the Guayas Twelfth Criminal Judge (judicial case file, volume 27, folio 4247).