society. The Inter-American Court has observed that national authorities are the ones responsible for assessing the relevance of maintaining the precautionary measures that are ordered in their legal systems. However, in carrying out this task, the authorities should offer sufficient reasons to allow for an understanding of why those measures are granted, so that their use is not distorted. International case law and comparative criminal law agree that precautionary measures in criminal proceedings must be aimed solely at ensuring that the detainee does not hinder effective investigations or evade justice.147 118. In this case, the initial court decision restricting Tulio Álvarez’s right to leave the country was handed down on December 15, 2004, and was in force for approximately one and a half years during the criminal proceedings until the final judgment of conviction. In support of its decision, the Seventh Trial Court stated that, “There is there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the defendant was the alleged perpetrator or participant in the commission of said crime, given the evidence presented by the complainant. The Court additionally finds a reasonable presumption that the defendant is a flight risk, based on the assessment of the circumstances of this particular case, and given his ability to leave the country permanently.” The Circuit Court of Appeals echoed that decision and added that, since the trial against Tulio Álvarez had gone forward and was underway, his presence was required in order to guarantee the continuation and outcomes of the case. 119. It is impossible to verify from the above whether the authorities effectively weighed the reasons, necessity, and proportionality of the travel restriction ordered. On the contrary, there is a clear absence of reasoning set forth in the rulings issued to that end. The petitioner maintains, and the State does not dispute, that this measure unnecessarily infringed his rights in this case. Although the case file reflects that he was granted permission to travel abroad three times, with the condition that he report in person the Monday following his return,148 he was subjected to lengthy procedures to request authorization to leave the country every time he needed to do so, which went beyond the trial to the sentencing enforcement system. In addition, according to the established facts of the case, the court of competent jurisdiction never adjudicated the petitioner’s request to attend the Guadalajara Book Fair from September 20-28, 2005 in order to promote his books, and to attend a conference on November 27, 2005. 120. The IACHR therefore concludes that the State failed to demonstrate the necessity and proportionality of the foreign travel ban imposed against Tulio Álvarez for the duration of his trial, in violation of his rights to the presumption of innocence and to freedom of movement enshrined in Articles 8.2 and 22 of the American Convention. b) Prior notification in detail to the accused of the charges against him (Article 8.2.b) 121. The Inter-American Court has held that in order to satisfy Article 8.2.b of the American Convention the State must inform the accused not only of the reason for the charges against him—that is, the acts or omissions attributed to him—but also the reasons leading the State to formulate the accusation, the evidentiary support for the charges, and the legal classification of the alleged acts. All of this information must be express, clear, comprehensive, and sufficiently detailed to allow the accused to fully exercise his right to a defense and present his version of the events to the judge. The Court has found that the timely observance of Article 8.2.b is essential for the effective exercise of the right to a defense.149 147 I/A Court H.R., Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, para. 129 148 Annex 6. Ninth Trial Court for the Enforcement of Judgments of the Criminal Judicial Circuit for the Caracas Metropolitan Area. Enforcement Judgment No.1429-06, Case File No. 7. July 3, 2006. Communication from the petitioner received on April 12, 2007. 149 I/A Court H.R., Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 149; Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, para. 225; Case of Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, para. 118; Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 187.