include criteria concerning the limits to its duration. 504 This Court considers that the inclusion of time limits for a detention is a safeguard against the arbitrariness of the deprivation of liberty. 505 359. For its part, Article 7(5) of the Convention establishes that “[a]ny person detained shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to be released without prejudice to the continuation of the proceedings. His release may be subject to guarantees to assure his appearance for trial.” 360. In this regard, the Court recalls that the right to personal liberty “is accompanied by a judicial obligation to process the criminal proceedings during which the accused is deprived of his liberty with greater diligence and promptness.” 506 361. In cases involving pretrial detention in the context of criminal proceedings, the Court has pointed out that this rule imposes time limits on the duration of such detention and, consequently, on the powers of the State to ensure the purposes of the proceedings through this precautionary measure. When the term of pretrial detention exceeds what is reasonable, the State may limit the freedom of the accused with other less harmful measures that ensure his appearance at trial, other than deprivation of liberty. 507 362. In other words, even when there are reasons to keep a person in pretrial detention, Article 7(5) guarantees that he or she will be released if the period of detention has exceeded a reasonable time. 508 Likewise, a detention or remand in custody must be subject to periodic review, so that it is not prolonged when the reasons for its adoption no longer exist. In this order of ideas, the judge does not have to wait until the moment of acquittal for a detained person to regain his freedom, but must periodically assess whether the causes, necessity and proportionality of the measure persist, and whether the period of detention has exceeded the limits imposed by law and reason. Whenever it appears that the preventive detention does not satisfy these conditions, release must be decreed, without prejudice to the continuation of the respective process. 509 363. In the instant case, the Court notes that, based on Article 376 of the CCP, 510 the Criminal Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José ordered on September 7, 2000, the In this regard, the European Court has indicated that: “The Court observes that the domestic law regulated in detail ‘detention pending investigation’ in ordinary criminal proceedings and set specific time-limits for the pretrial detention of criminal defendants. However, no provision was made in domestic law for a time-limit specifically applied to detention ‘with a view to extradition’. The Court notes that in the absence of clear legal provisions establishing the procedure for ordering and extending detention with a view to extradition and setting time-limits for such detention, the deprivation of liberty to which the applicant was subjected was not circumscribed by adequate safeguards against arbitrariness”. ECHR, Case of Garayev v. Azerbaijan, No. 53688/08. Judgment of June 10, 2010, Para. 99. See also, ECHR, Case Ryabikin v. Russia, No. 8320/04. Judgment of June 19, 2008, para. 129. 505 Cf. Case of Wong Ho Wing v. Peru, supra, para. 255. 506 Cf. Case of Bayarri v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 30, 2008. Series C No. 187, para. 70, and Case of Wong Ho Wing v. Peru, supra, para. 268. 507 Cf. Case of Bayarri v. Argentina, supra, para. 70, and Case of Wong Ho Wing v. Peru, supra, para. 268. 508 Cf. Case of Bayarri v. Argentina, supra, para. 74, and Case of Argüelles et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 288, para. 122. 509 Cf. Case of Bayarri v. Argentina, supra, para. 76, and Case of Argüelles et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 121. 510 Article 376 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in force at the time established a procedure for processing complex matters: “Admissibility. When the processing is complex due to the multiplicity of facts, the large number of defendants or victims, or when it involves cases related to the investigation of any form of organized crime, the court, ex officio or at the request of the Office of the Public Prosecutor, may authorize, through a reasoned decision, the application of the special rules provided for in this Title […].” Cf. CCP Law No. 7594 (evidence file, folio 28401). 504 116