20. IX of the Constitution. This occurred even though the alleged victims who filed the appeals requested a control of conventionality of the legislation or the retroactive application of the rules of the criminal procedure system in force as of 2008. This means that, in the instant case, the provisions of Article 19 of the Constitution on mandatory pretrial detention were interpreted, by the authorities that heard these appeals, as an exception to the provisions of Article 20.IX of said Constitution on the maximum duration of this measure. As a result, according to this interpretation, for the crimes listed in Article 19 of the Constitution there would be no possibility of release after two years as established in Article 20.IX of the Constitution, nor would there be a need for periodic review of the precautionary measure. This is because, in the case of mandatory pretrial detention, it is sufficient to be charged with such a crime in order for it to be applicable, a situation that continues until the sentence is handed down, without it being possible, in each case, to determine whether the precautionary measure is appropriate, necessary or proportionate. In these circumstances, the principle of presumption of innocence is devoid of content. 183. The Court also notes that the periodic reviews of the appropriateness of continuing the pretrial detention of Daniel García Rodríguez and Reyes Alpízar Ortiz were always carried out at the request of the interested party, and never as an ex officio review by the judicial authorities. 184. On this last point, the Court has held that pretrial detention must be subject to periodic review and should not be continued when the reasons for its adoption no longer exist. 213 Specifically, it has stated that the judge does not have to wait until an acquittal is delivered for a person who has been detained to recover his freedom, but should periodically assess whether the grounds for the measure remain, whether the measure continues to be necessary and proportionate, and whether the duration of detention has exceeded legal and reasonable limits. Therefore, whenever it appears that pretrial detention does not meet these criteria, release should be ordered, without prejudice to the continuation of the respective proceedings. 214 185. Finally, it is clear to this Court that the prolongation of pretrial detention for more than 17 years meant, in practice, that the defendants were subjected to a covert punishment without a conviction, since it constituted a punitive measure without a prior trial, without proper guarantees, and for an unreasonable period of time, since it corresponded to approximately half of the sentence handed down in the conviction judgment (supra para. 10). On this point, it should be recalled that the Human Rights Committee has stated that this regimen cannot be used as a way to circumvent the limits and guarantees of the criminal justice process or to impose a sentence without a trial. 215 In this sense, it is clear that Article 8(2) of the American Convention, which establishes that every person accused of a crime has the right to be presumed innocent until his guilt is legally established, was flagrantly and factually violated. B.4. Conclusion 186. Based on the foregoing, this Court finds that the State is responsible for the violation of the right to personal liberty recognized in Articles 7(1), 7(2), 7(4), and 7(5) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to the obligation to respect the rights established in Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Daniel García Rodríguez and Reyes Alpízar Ortiz, due to their unlawful detention, the lack of information on the reasons for said detention and for not having been brought promptly before a judicial authority after their arrest (supra paras. 132, 135, 138 and 141). 213 114. Cf. Case of Bayarri v. Argentina, supra, para. 74, and Case of Tzompaxtle Tecpile et al. v. Mexico, supra, para. 214 Cf. Case of Argüelles et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, paras. 121 and 122, and Case of Tzompaxtle Tecpile et al. v. Mexico, supra, para. 114. 215 Cf. Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 35. Liberty and security of person, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/35 (2014) Para. 14. -49-