specifically states that alternative measures should be available and that restrictive measures of liberty may only be imposed when it is not possible to use alternative measures.138 Similarly, the European Court has held that the authorities must consider alternative measures to guarantee appearance for trial, specifically measures such as bail, pursuant the terms of Article 5(3) of the European Convention.139 108. In the Universal System of the Protection of Human Rights, the UN Standard Minimum Rules for Non-Custodial Measures refer to pre-trial detention as a last resort and clarify that “pre-trial detention shall be used as a means of last resort in criminal proceedings with due regard for the investigation of the alleged offence and for the protection of society and the victim.” The Rules add that the alternative measures to pre-trial detention “shall be employed at as early a stage as possible.”140 109. Moreover, the Inter-American Court has held that, in the cases of deprivation of liberty, Article 7(5) imposes limits to its duration and, therefore, when the period of pre-trial detention exceeds a reasonable time, the liberty of the accused must be restricted by other less harmful measures that would assure appearance at trial.141 The standards that should be borne in mind to determine the reasonableness of the period must be closely related the specific circumstances of the case. In view of the above and in accordance with the provisions of Articles 7(3), 7(5) and 8(2) (principle of the presumption of innocence), the Court considers that the domestic authorities must tend toward the imposition of alternative methods of pretrial detention, so as not to distort its exceptional nature. iii. Duty to substantiate the measures that deprive liberty 110. Finally, with respect to the third point, the Court has held that any restriction to liberty that does not have a sufficient justification (Article 8(1)) that would allow evaluating whether it adjusts to the aforementioned conditions would be arbitrary and, therefore, would violate Article 7(3). In order to respect the presumption of innocence (Article 8(2)) when ordering precautionary measures that restrict liberty, the State must clearly substantiate and accredit, with a justification depending on the specific case, the existence of the requisites established by the Convention.142 To proceed otherwise would be to anticipate the punishment, which would contravene widely recognized general principles of law, among them, the principle of the presumption of innocence.143 111. Similarly, the Court has found that pre-trial detention must be subjected to a periodic review in order that it is not prolonged when the reasons that justified its adoption no longer exist.144 It has stated that the judge does not have to wait for an acquittal for a detainee to recover his or her liberty, but rather the judge must periodically evaluate whether the rationale, necessity and proportionality of the measure still exist and whether the period of the deprivation of liberty has gone beyond the limits imposed by the law and reason. His or Cf. Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers, Recommendation CM/Rec (2006)13 on the use of remand in custody, the conditions in which it takes place and the provision of safeguards against abuse, September 27, 2006, para. 3. 138 Cf. ECHR. Case of Idalov v. Russia, para. 140 and Case of Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, Judgment of September 14, 2009, Application N° 15217/07, para. 139. 139 United Nations, General Assembly, UN Standard Minimum Rules for Non-Custodial Measures (Tokyo Rules), Resolution 45/110, December 14, 1990, Rules 6(1) and 6(2). 140 141 Cf. Case of Bayarri v. Argentina, para. 70 and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica, para. 361. Cf. Caso Argüelles et al. v. Argentina, para. 120 and Case of Women Victims of Sexual Torture in Atenco v. Mexico, para. 251. 142 143 Cf. Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Merits, para. 77 and Case of Argüelles et al. v. Argentina, para. 133. Cf. Case of Bayarri v. Argentina, para. 74 and Case of Women Victims of Sexual Torture in Atenco v. Mexico, para. 255. 144 22