beyond a time that is reasonable to accomplish the ends that justified their detention would be tantamount, in effect, to a premature punishment.84 83. The IACHR has said the following with respect to unreasonably long pre-trial detention: In addition, the risk of inverting the presumption of innocence increases with an unreasonably prolonged pretrial incarceration. The guarantee of presumption of innocence becomes increasingly empty and ultimately a mockery when pretrial imprisonment is prolonged unreasonably, since presumption notwithstanding, the severe penalty of deprivation of liberty, which is legally reserved for those who have been convicted, is being visited upon someone who is, until and if convicted by the courts, innocent.85 (…) If the State fails to issue a judgment establishing blame justifies further holding the accused in pre-trial incarceration, based on the suspicion of guilt, then it is essentially substituting pre-trial detention for the punishment.86 84. Respect for the right to be presumed innocent also requires that the State demonstrate with clear and reasoned arguments in each specific case the existence of valid rules governing the applicability of pretrial detention.87 Accordingly, the principle of presumption of innocence is also violated when pretrial detention is imposed arbitrarily, or when its application is essentially determined by such factors as the nature of the crime, the expected punishment, or the mere existence of reasonable indicia implicating the accused.88 85. In this case, the Commission notes that the First Judge of the Criminal Court’s decision on the arrest warrant of August 13, 1992 held that all the requirements of Article 177 of the Criminal Code of Procedure had been fulfilled. Said Article stipulates that the judge may issue an order for pretrial detention “whenever she or he believed necessary” provided that the following legal elements exist: (a) indicia that suggest there has been a crime warranting a term of imprisonment; and (b) indicia that suggest the accused is the perpetrator or accomplice of the crime that is the subject of the proceedings. Furthermore, the same article required that “the court decision specify the indicia that are the grounds for the order to remand into custody.”89 In other words, the legislation in force provided that circumstantial evidence suggesting responsibility was sufficient grounds for pretrial detention, without requiring verification of the procedural aims. In this sense, this provision and the decision issued based thereon are contrary to the American Convention. 86. The Commission further notes that Mr. Montesinos pretrial detention lasted at least six years, bearing in mind the date of his second habeas corpus appeal in 1998. Given the arguments laid out, the 84 IACHR, Report No. 2/97, Case 11.205, Merits, Jorge Luis Bronstein et al., Argentina, March 11, 1997, paragraph 12; IACHR, Third Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Paraguay, OEA/Ser./L/VII.110. Doc. 52, adopted on March 9, 2001, Ch. IV, paragraph 34. See also: I/A Court H.R., Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras, Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, paragraph 69; I/A Court H.R., Case of Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador, Judgment of June 24, 2005, Series C No. 129, paragraph 111; I/A Court H.R., Case of Tibi v. Ecuador, Judgment of September 7, 2004, Series C No. 114, paragraph 180; I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute” v. Paraguay, Judgment of September 2, 2004, Series C No. 112, paragraph 229; I/A Court H.R., Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador, Judgment of November 12, 1997, Series C No. 35, paragraph 77. 85 IACHR, Report No. 12/96. Argentina. Case 11.245, March 1, 1996, paragraph 80. 86 IACHR, Report No. 12/96. Argentina. Case 11.245, March 1, 1996, par. 114. 87 I/A Court H.R., Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of November 20, 2009, Series C No. 207, paragraph 144. 88 IACHR, Report on the Use of Pretrial Detention in the Americas, OEA/Ser.L/V/II. December 30, 2013 paragraph 137. 89 Article 177 of the Ecuadorian Code of Criminal Procedure of 1983. (L. 134-PCL. RO 511: 10-jun-1983). I/A Court H.R. Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, paragraph 146; and Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, paragraph 104. 15