36 true, objective circumstances of the specific case. 140 With regard to this argument, it is important to emphasize that the conduct of one of the accused is not sufficient grounds to hold the others in pretrial detention. Likewise, the petition to benefit from Argentina’s law on self-amnesty, which entailed statements admitting that the crimes had been committed allegedly as a justified move to combat subversion, does not constitute per se a reason to validate the presence of a risk to the proceedings and does not objectively and unequivocally demonstrate an intent to interfere with justice. 128. The Court therefore holds that the State, by failing to weigh whether the purposes, need and proportionality of the measures of confinement remained unaltered for approximately three years, impinged on the personal liberty of the accused and therefore constitute a violation of article 7(1) and 7(3) of the American Convention, in conjunction with article 1(1) thereof, in injury of Mr. Argüelles, Mr. Aracena, Mr. Arancibia, Mr. Candurra, Mr. Cardozo, Mr. Di Rosa, Mr. Galluzzi, Mr. Giordano, Mr. Machín, Mr. Maluf, Mr. Marcial, Mr. Mercau, Mr. Morón, Mr. Muñoz, Mr. Óbolo, Mr. Pérez, Mr. Pontecorvo, and Mr. Tomasek. ii) Duration of pretrial detention 129. Article 7(5) of the American Convention guarantees the right of any person held in pretrial detention to be tried within a reasonable time or released, without prejudice to the continuation of the proceedings. This right imposes temporal limits on the duration of pretrial detention and, consequently, on the State’s power to protect the purpose of the proceedings by using this type of precautionary measure. When 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 by imprisonment and that ensure his presence at the trial. This right also imposes the judicial obligation to process criminal actions in which the accused is deprived of his liberty with greater diligence and promptness. 141 130. The general rule must be the liberty of the accused while their criminal responsibility is being decided,142 because they enjoy a legal status of innocence and this requires that the State accord them a treatment in keeping with their situation as persons who have not been convicted.143 This Court has asserted the State’s obligation not to restrict the liberty of a detained person beyond the limits strictly necessary to ensure that he will not impede the efficient development of an investigation and that he will not evade justice.144 131. In this sense, pretrial detention must strictly conform to the provisions of Article 7(5) of the American Convention: it cannot be for longer than a reasonable time and cannot endure for longer than the grounds invoked to justify it.145 Anything else would be tantamount to an advance sentence, which is at odds with universally recognized general principles of law, including the principle of presumption of innocence. 146 Consequently, a protracted pretrial 140 Cfr. Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206, par. 115; and Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, Members and Activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile, par. 312. 141 Cfr. Case of Case of Bayarri v. Argentina, par. 70; Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela, par. 119 and 120. 142 Cfr. Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras, par. 67; Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, Members and Activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile, par. 310. 143 Cfr. Case of J. v. Peru, par. 157; Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, Members and Activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile, par. 310. 144 Cfr. Case of Suarez Rosero v. Ecuador, Merits, par. 77; Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, Members and Activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile, par. 312. 145 Cfr. Case of "Juvenile Reeducation Institute" v. Paraguay, par. 229. 146 Cfr. Case of Suarez Rosero v. Ecuador, par. 77; Case of Bayarri v. Argentina, par. 110.