56 e) Mr. Tibi asserted that at no time did the police inform him of the reason for his arrest, despite the fact that the court order stated that “he was detained because he was being investigated for drug trafficking in criminal proceeding N 361-95.” Not informing Mr. Tibi of the reasons for his detention and of the charges against him breached Article 7(4) of the Convention; f) on October 4, 1995 Mr. Tibi learned of the existence of a preventive detention order against him, issued by the judge in Guayaquil. Although the courts were hearing said case, Mr. Tibi was never brought before the pertinent judge in the course of the proceeding, as required by Article 7(5) of the Convention; g) while the State may argue that Article 116 of the law on narcotics [Ley sobre Sustancias Estupefacientes y Psicotrópicas], in force at the time, established that the detainee should be brought before the Public Prosecutor and not before a Judge, the accused must appear before the judge or the judicial functionary with jurisdiction to issue a release warrant. The Ministerio Fiscal General is part of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, which is independent and explicitly excluded from the category of bodies that according to Ecuador’s Constitution carry out judicial function; h) after the arrest, Mr. Tibi remained in preventive detention two years, three months and three weeks, which is not a reasonable time to remain in prison without being sentenced. In this regard, it must be proven that the detention was well founded from the start. If the detention was illegal or arbitrary from the outset, as in the case of Mr. Tibi, no period would be reasonable. Second, assuming that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the accused committed a crime, the State must demonstrate that said suspicions have increased to justify duration of the detention; in other words, there must be a regular analysis of the necessity and legitimacy of the measure, a situation that did not take place in Mr. Tibi’s case. Third, even if there are sufficient grounds for suspicion to continue preventive incarceration, the State must demonstrate that it has been especially diligent in the investigation of the case, a step that is clearly lacking in the instant case; i) the national courts and, subsequently, the bodies established by the Convention must decide whether detention of the accused before a final decision has, at some point, gone beyond a reasonable limit. This limit serves the objective of protecting the accused regarding his basic right to personal liberty; and j) both the need for and the duration of preventive detention must be proportional to the crime being investigated and to the applicable punishment. Once provisional dismissal has been ordered, a person’s detention is neither reasonable nor legitimate, and it does not comply with the need for proportionality. Pleadings of the representatives of the alleged victim and his next of kin 92. The representatives of the alleged victim and his next of kin argued that: a) They fully agreed with the analysis of the Commission;