established. This would be tantamount to anticipating a sentence, which is at odds with universally recognized general principles of law.112. 129. As to the length of preventive detention, the Court has established that Article 7.5 of the Convention guarantees the right of every person to be tried within a reasonable time or to be released without prejudice to the continuation of the proceedings. This right imposes temporal limits on the duration of pre-trial detention and, consequently, on the State’s power to protect the purpose of the proceedings by using this type of precautionary measure. 113 In the Court’s own words, “When the duration of pre-trial 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 proceedings in which the accused is deprived of his liberty with greater diligence and promptness.”114 130. Lastly, the Court has addressed the notion of proportionality in preventive detention as follows: […] The preventive detention is limited by the principle of proportionality,115 by virtue of which a person that is presumed innocent cannot be treated equal to or worse than a convicted person. The State must avoid that the measure of procedural coercion be equal to or more harmful for the defendant than the punishment in case of conviction. This means that it should not be appropriate to authorize the preventive detention in cases where it is not possible to impose a prison term, and that such prison term must cease when the detention period has exceeded a reasonable time.116 The principle of proportionality implies, also, a rational relationship between the precautionary measure and the purpose sought, so that the sacrifice inherent in the restriction of the right to liberty is not exaggerated or excessive compared to the advantages obtained from this restriction and the achievement of the purpose sought.117 131. In short, in keeping with the interpretation conducted by the two bodies of the InterAmerican system on Articles 7.3 and 7.5 of the American Convention, in the Commission’s Report on the Use of Pretrial Detention in the Americas, it has identified the following standards with regard to pretrial detention: i) Pretrial detention must be the exception and not the rule; ii) the legitimate and permissible purposes of pretrial detention must be of a procedural nature, such as avoiding the risk of flight or impeding the proceedings; iii) consequently, the existence of evidence of responsibility does not constitute sufficient reason to order the pretrial detention of a person; iv) even though there are procedural purposes, pretrial detention must be absolutely necessary and proportional, to the extent that there may not be any other less harsh ways to achieve the procedural purpose that is sought and that does not 112 IA Court of HR. Case of Acosta Calderón. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, para. 111; IA Court of HR. Case of Tibi. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 180; and IA Court of HR. Case of Suárez Rosero. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 77. 113 IA Court of HR, Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206. Para. 119. 114 IA Court of HR, Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206. Para. 120. 115 IA Court of HR, Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206. Para. 122. Citing. See: Case of “Juvenile Reeducation Institute” v. Paraguay. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 228. 116 IA Court of HR, Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206. Para. 122. 117 IA Court of HR, Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206. Para. 122. 32