71 137. Regarding Article 8 of the Convention, the representatives of the alleged victim indicated that they endorsed the arguments presented by the Commission and added that: a) The proceedings against Mr. Canese were not decided within a reasonable time, based on a “global consideration of the proceedings,” because more than eight years elapsed from when the judgment of first instance was delivered until it was executed; b) The imposition of a “coercive” measure before a judgment is final should be governed by precautionary purposes and its duration should be less than that of the expected sanction; otherwise, such a measure is unlawful; and c) The State violated Ricardo Canese’s right to presumption of innocence established in Article 8 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, because it imposed on him a permanent restriction to leave the country for eight years, even though he had not been declared guilty of an offense; this “converted it into an anticipated and, therefore, arbitrary, punishment.” Arguments of the State 138. Regarding Article 8 of the Convention, the State indicated that: a) The proceedings against Mr. Canese were governed by the 1890 Code of Criminal Procedure, “[which], when regulating proceedings, established norms that did not favor the individual”; b) The new Code of Criminal Procedure of 1998 establishes that an ordinary criminal proceedings may not last more than three years, unless the judgment is appealed, in which case, a further six months are added. If the criminal proceedings have not been finally concluded in this lapse, the Code itself establishes the extinguishment of the State’s criminal proceedings; c) The mere passage of time does not necessarily signify the violation of the concept of reasonable time, which should govern any criminal proceedings with full guarantees; d) It agrees with the Commission that proceedings for slander and injuria should not be considered complex, unless there is a great deal of evidence to be provided to the proceedings, and a large number of witnesses or victims, which did not occur in this case; e) It does not agree with the considerations of the Commission regarding the attitude of Mr. Canese’s lawyers during the proceedings, because it considers that “it was far from being typical or normal conduct in criminal proceedings.” “To justify this affirmation, it is necessary to mention not only the case that the Commission referred to: the delaying activities regarding the action on unconstitutionality[,] which the plaintiff never notified to the defendant – it should be recalled that we are considering a private criminal proceeding, and the State is only obliged to deal with cases about which it is