5 17. As I have stated on another occasion, I believe that another factor needs to be added to these elements that help us assess the reasonableness of the time; one embodied in law and in practice, based on the circumstances of the specific case: the impact that the passage of time may have on the legitimate interests and rights of the individual, a point that we have not explored up until now. Beside these general and reasonable references, I consider that it will always be necessary to assess the issue casuistically. What is reasonable in one case may not be in another. It would be difficult to establish a “typical time” to which all proceedings are made to fit, as on Procrustes’ bed. Nevertheless, it is not unusual that, even without having this “typical time,” which when exceeded allows the actions of the authority to be censured – under the provisions of Articles 7 and 8 – we are confronted with evidently excessive durations: weeks to decide whether a detention is appropriate; years to bring a trial to conclusion. D) Material precautionary measures 18. In the Judgment in the Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez, the InterAmerican Court has also referred to material preventive measures in criminal cases, those that affect property and, thus, restrict rights connected directly to such property; particularly, the right to property. Many of the considerations, if not all, that I have formulated with regard to personal preventive measures are also applicable to this type of measure. These include, evidently, the rationality of the measures, based on elements that justify them. 19. It is necessary to be alert when faced with material precautionary measures that constitute, basically, shortcuts to eliminating a right, without the existence of evidence regarding the unlawful act committed, or proof of criminal responsibility, or a judgment declaring both these elements: all factors that restrict or eliminate any right. The Judgment in the case that gives rise to these comments points towards the excesses that may affect property, a delicate issues whose importance increases to the extent that summary instruments are used, unrelated to the declaration of unlawfulness and responsibility, based on conjecture and associated with an inversion of the burden of proof. 20. Thus, we return to the dilemma that has occupied many key decisions and discussions in the criminal sphere: does the end justify the means? We have maintained the inverse proposition, based on the principles of the criminal justice system of a democratic society: the legitimacy of the means legitimizes the end. This has important repercussions at all levels: for the precautionary measures that we are examining, but also for the definition of crimes, the selection of the juridical consequences of a crime, the organization of the proceedings, the admission and assessment of the evidence, the execution of penalties and measures, etcetera. Judge Sergio García Ramírez President