58 Rafael Rojas Madrigal submitted several arguments pertaining to the lack of clear and formal notification of the charges, with restrictions on the ability to continue to introduce evidence, difficulty in gaining access to physical copies of the judgments, and deficiency in the public defense. Messrs. Carlos Yépez Cruz, Luis Archbold Jay, Enrique Archbold Jay, Fernando Saldarriaga Saldarriaga and Miguel Valverde alleged lack of clear and formal notification of the charges, bribery of their public defender, preclusion from retaining private defense counsel, failure to understand the Spanish language and inability to attain physical copies of the judgments. Lastly, another group of petitioners made allegations regarding a violation of their right to a defense (see supra paragraph 15). 240. The Commission does not have sufficient evidence to determine whether the alleged violations actually took place. D. Right to personal liberty (Article 7 of the American Convention, in connection with Article 1.1 thereof) 241. Messrs. Jorge Martínez, Manfred Amrhein Pinto, Ronald Fernández Pinto, Carlos Osborne Escalante, Carlos González Lizano, Arturo Fallas Zúñiga, and Rafael Rojas Madrigal, submitted arguments on the right to personal liberty. Mr. Martínez submitted arguments on the duration of preventive detention, while Manfred Amrhein Pinto, Ronald Fernández Pinto, Carlos Osborne Escalante, Carlos González Lizano, Arturo Fallas Zúñiga, and Rafael Rojas Madrigal made additional arguments. The Commission will rule separately on these arguments. 1. Duration of preventive detention of Jorge Martínez 242. The Court has held that preventive detention is limited by the principles of legality, the presumption of innocence, need and proportionality, all of which are strictly necessary in a democratic society.339 It has also asserted that it is a precautionary rather than a punitive measure340 and that it is the most severe measure that can be applied to the person accused of a crime, reason for which its application must have an exceptional nature. In the view of that Court, the rule must be the 341 defendant’s liberty while a decision is made regarding his criminal responsibility. The Court has noted that the personal characteristics of the alleged perpetrator and the seriousness of the crime that he is charged with are not, in themselves, sufficient justification for preventive detention.342 243. As for the grounds warranting preventive detention, the organs of the system have construed Article 7.3 of the American Convention to the effect that indicia of liability is a necessary requirement but insufficient to impose such a measure. In the words of the Court, 339 IA Ct of HR, Case of López Álvarez. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 67; Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, para. 106; Case of Palamara Iribarne. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, para. 197; and Case of Acosta Calderón. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, para. 74. 340 IA Ct of HR, Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 77. 341 IA Ct of HR, Case of López Álvarez. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 67; Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, para. 106; Case of Palamara Iribarne. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, para. 196; and Case of Acosta Calderón. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, para. 74. 342 IA Ct of HR, Case of López Álvarez. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 69; Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, para. 106; Case of Acosta Calderón. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, para.75; and Case of Tibi. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 180.