(…) there must be sufficient evidence to allow reasonable supposition that the person committed to trial has taken part in the criminal offense under investigation. 189 Nevertheless “even in these circumstances, the deprivation of liberty of the accused cannot be based on general preventive or special preventive purposes, which could be attributed to the punishment, but [...] based on a legitimate purpose, which is: to ensure that the accused does not prevent the proceedings from being conducted or elude the system of justice190. 105. Accordingly, any decision by which the right to personal liberty is restricted through the imposition of preventive detention must contain a sufficient and individualized statement of reasons for assessing whether such detention is in conformity with the conditions necessary for its application.191 106. On the other hand, Article 7.5 of the American Convention imposes time limits on the duration of preventive detention and, consequently, on the powers of the State to protect the purposes of the process by means of this type of precautionary measure. As the Inter-American Court has indicated, "when the duration of preventive 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 by imprisonment and that ensure his presence at the trial." 192 The Court has indicated that even if there are grounds for keeping a person in preventive detention, the period of custody should not exceed a reasonable time.193 107. As regards the need for a periodic review of the grounds for preventive detention and its duration, the Court has indicated that (...) a preventive detention or imprisonment must be subject to periodic review, so that it does not continue when the reasons for its adoption cease to exist (...). Whenever it appears that preventive detention does not satisfy these conditions, release must be ordered, notwithstanding that the said trial is still ongoing194. 108. In addition to its effects on the exercise of the right to personal liberty, both the Commission and the Court have indicated that the improper use of preventive detention may have an impact on the principle of presumption of innocence set forth in Article 8.2 of American Convention. In this respect, they have emphasized the importance of the criterion of reasonableness, since keeping a person deprived of his liberty beyond a reasonable time for the fulfillment of the purposes justifying his detention would in fact amount to an anticipated penalty.195 189 I/A Court H.R. Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206. Para. 111. Citing. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 101 and Case of Servellón García et al. v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 21, 2006. Series C No. 152, para. 90. 190 I/A Court H.R., Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206. Para. 111. Citing: Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 103; and Case of Servellón García et al. v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 21, 2006. Series C No. 152, para. 90. 191 21. IACHR. Report on the Use of Preventive Detention in the Americas. OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 46/13. December 30, 2013. Para. 192 I/A Court H.R. Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206. para.120. 193 I/A Court H.R. Case of Argüelles et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 288, para. 122. 194 I/A Court H.R. Case of Argüelles et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 288, para. 122, para.121. 195 IACHR. Report No. 2/97, Case 11.205, Merits, Jorge Luis Bronstein and others, Argentina, March 11, 1997, para. 12; IACHR. Third Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Paraguay, OEA/Ser./L/VII.110. Doc. 52, adopted on March 9, 2001. Cap. IV, para. 34. See also: I/A Court H.R. Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 69; I/A Court H.R. Case of Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, para. 111; I/A Court H.R. Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 180; I/A Court H.R. Case of the "Juvenile Reeducation Institute" v. Paraguay.. Judgment of [continues …] 26