13 proceeding. During this proceeding, the individual was already subjected to pressure and to oppression of his rights. The lawfulness behind this conduct of the State does not in itself –so to speak- legitimize the abuse that may result from an extreme delay in deciding matters during the initial stages of the procedure. That is why it is good that some legal systems have established a certain term –which may be more or less broad- to exhaust an investigation and to decide whether a case will be brought before a judge, when the investigation has been conducted by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, or before the court that hears the case, when the investigation was conducted by an examining judge. 57. It is also possible for the proceeding to take place without the accused being subject to preventive incarceration, whether because he receives the benefit of conditional freedom, or because in his case the law does not allow precautionary measures that restrict liberty. But even in these hypotheticals, it is possible for the prosecution to last an unreasonable amount of time, even if, when it ends, the “alleged innocent” who is accused has not suffered preventive incarceration. 58. We must also pay attention to situations –as in the instant case- when the proceeding enters into a sort of fixed-term “limbo”, as well as others in which the procedure is suspended –whether in the investigative phase or during the trial- for an indefinite time, which only concludes when the statute of limitations enters into effect, but this can be interrupted by acts that seek only said result. It is not always a matter of the old acquittal of action, generally reproved, but rather a sort of “new opportunity” for investigation that hangs like a sword of Damocles over the defendant. 59. Temporary or provisional stays, debatable in themselves, must be foreseen and used with great restraint and, I would add, also with great reserve or reticence. This parenthesis of legal non-definition serves justice poorly. The State must rigorously and scrupulously pursue the investigation to open a proceeding, not trust that there will always be a “second opportunity” to correct errors, gaps or flaws of the initial investigation, and while this opportunity comes and the State takes advantage of it –if it does occur and the State does in fact take advantage of it- legal security is suspended and justice takes a vacation. 60. We must also review the dies ad quem. We say that measurement of the reasonable term extends until the definitive judgment. Very well, but only in principle. When measuring that term, we must take into account the second instance, when there is one, which may last several months, and sometimes several years. Should we not, then opt for the unappealable judgment, which is the definitive one that cannot be challenged through regular means of recourse? Of course, these measurements must be applied in light of the specific case and taking into account the aspects that European jurisprudence has outlined and that inter-American jurisprudence has adopted, as I mentioned before: complexity of the matter, strategy of the interested party, conduct of the court. XV. Preventive detention 61. Every time the Inter-American Court examines matters such as those of the Case of Tibi, the problem of preventive detention comes up. Certainly, it can arise in connection with reasonable term, which in said conditions should be especially strict and restricted, but also in connection with the very justification of this precautionary deprivation of liberty. Beccaria deemed it to be the punishment before the judgment, and expression that shows the strange nature of preventive detention and its debatable justification. If it is only based on practical reasons (rooted in the inability of justice to find a substitute that at the same time ensures development of the proceeding and security of participants in it, and that enables re-floating of the