30 regulations that had made it possible to prolong pretrial detentions were still in effect, the State had violated article 2 of the Convention. Finally, the Commission broadened the initial argument given in the Merits Report, adding that the lengthy periods of confinement became in fact an advance penalty against the alleged victims, in violation of articles 7(5) and 8(2) of the American Convention. 100. Representatives De Vita and Cueto argued that the alleged victims were convicted to prison for a sentence lesser than the time they had already served, that their right to personal liberty had been violated due to the excessive time spent in pretrial detention by Mr. Pontecorvo, Mr. Candurra, Mr. Di Rosa, Mr. Machín and Mr. Arancibia, and that this excessive period was acknowledged by the National Chamber of Criminal Cassation in its reasoning of the conviction handed down on April 3, 1995. They added that the orders for pretrial detention did not specify the grounds for the measure and did not meet the minimum requirements given in the Code of Military Justice, thus violating article 7(3) of the Convention. For all these reasons, they asked the Court to find violation of articles 7(2), 7(3) and 7(5). 101. Representatives Vega and Sommer pointed out that Mr. Maluf, Mr. Pérez, Mr. Galluzzi and Mr. Óbolo had been placed in pretrial detention illegally and for excessively long periods of 7 and 8 years, “while no judicial decisions whatsoever were made.” They argued that the length of pretrial detention in some cases even exceeded the term applicable to final convictions. They also emphasized that “the measure […] was at no time explained on the basis that the accused could have interfered with the criminal proceedings against them or may be likely to evade justice. Based on the official documents in the case, the State at no time said that the accused had committed, or intended to commit, delaying tactics that could have interfered with the process or pushed the case into impunity.” They claimed that this also violated the principle of innocence because pretrial detention, when it is excessively long, becomes a premature sentence. They added that any pretrial detention that lasts longer than allowed under domestic legislation should be considered prima facie unlawful. In the instant case, the military laws did not set any specific time limits for the military court to resolve the case, but national justice systems did have such parameters. 102. They noted in their final written pleadings that the arbitrary nature of the proceedings was not corrected later by the civilian courts. They asked for all these reasons that the State be held responsible for violations of articles 7(2), 7(5) and 1(1), in conjunction with article 8(1) and 8(2). 103. The Inter-American Defenders argued that there had been no explanation of the reasons to proceed with the arrests, which suggests that no competent judge had ordered them on legal grounds, nor was there any oversight of the legality of the measures of confinement. With respect to the violation of article 7(3), they argued that the arrests and the warrants for pretrial detention of the alleged victims were arbitrary. 104. They added that pretrial detention “is not compatible with the presumption of innocence, as the of this case is for the guilty parties to receive suitable punishment.” They argued that the pretrial detention of Giordano, Mr. Tomasek, Mr. Aracena, Mr. Mercau, Mr. Morón, Mr. Cardozo, Mr. Mattheus, Mr. Allendes, Mr. Marcial, Mr. Muñoz and Mr. Argüelles was arbitrary because it had lasted an excessively long time in the terms of article 7(5) of the Convention, according to which, “...the State is always under obligation to conduct regular reviews of pretrial detention to ascertain whether the reasons they were ordered remain in effect, and have suspects released if circumstances have changed or if the measure has lasted an unreasonable amount of time.”