159. The Commission observed that Mr. Cortez paid USD 1,500.00 (one thousand five hundred dollars) as bail “for his release on December 19, 1997.” It noted that this was for a preventive deprivation of liberty and a trial that did not ensure the presumption of innocence or the right to be tried by a competent authority. The Commission argued that the bail payment violated the right to property until the money was returned on February 28, 2000. It argued therefore that the State had violated Article 21 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 1(1). 160. The representatives agreed with the Commission. They also argued that the right to property was violated for additional reasons: (a) the cost of food in the air base where Mr. Cortez was detained, which he had to pay for; (b) the payment of attorney fees before he was sponsored free of charge; (c) the loss of Mr. Cortez’s job at the Ícaro company; and (d) the fact that Mr. Cortez was “hindered” from finding other work because the trial against him appeared on his “criminal record.” 136 161. The State explained that the bail was set at the request of Mr. Cortez so that he could be released, which took place on December 19, 1997. It also noted that later, once the military trial had been declared invalid, the amount was returned to Mr. Cortez at his request. It argued that the amount was not excessive and that the bail did not involve a transfer of ownership of the money. Ecuador also denied that the payment of attorney fees could be blamed on the State, because “it represents an outlay inherent to court proceedings.” 137 The State therefore held that there were no grounds for arguing that the right to property had been violated. B. Considerations of the Court 162. The Court considers it appropriate to analyze the arguments concerning the setting of bail. 138 This Court has explained that the measure of bail “does not constitute per se a violation of the right to property, as it does not [represent] a transfer of the ownership right.” 139 Nevertheless, it noted that depending on the circumstances of the case, it could effect a violation of the right to property when it is not based on an analysis of proportionality, objective information, and the defendant's ability to pay, or when it is held for a prolonged period of time without periodic review. 140 163. Although the bail was imposed within the context of criminal proceedings that the domestic authorities themselves nullified (supra para. 59), the sum paid by Mr. Cortez was returned to him, and it has not been argued that the amount was excessive or that it was held for an excessive length of time; nor does that follow from the confirmed facts. Thus, given the circumstances of the case, the Court does not find financial harm that could be understood as an infringement of the right to property. Accordingly, the State is not responsible for violating Article 21 of the Convention. 136 The representatives explained that “the Judicial Council keeps public records of criminal trials, so that anyone can find out if someone is being prosecuted, [and] not all employers note whether the person was found innocent.” They added that “the National Police of Ecuador maintains a database of detentions[,] which many companies manage to access despite it being for internal use.” 137 In the part of its answering brief that addresses the right to property, the State did not comment on other allegations the representatives had made on this point. Later, regarding reparations, it did mention certain requests related to those arguments, and it rejected them. 138 Other arguments by the representatives (supra para. 160) will, when relevant, be taken into consideration in relation to the pertinent measures of reparation in the case (infra chapter IX). 139 Case of Andrade Salmón v. Bolivia, supra, para. 128. 140 Cf. Case of Andrade Salmón v. Bolivia, supra, paras. 121–135. 35