decision, the judge did not include the reasons for the need to issue the precautionary measure based on any of the legitimate purposes permitted by the Convention, that is, to ensure that the accused does not interfere with the proceedings or evade the action of justice. ii. Regarding the definitive detention order in the military criminal jurisdiction 207. Secondly, on August 9, 1995, the Permanent Military Judge of Tarapoto issued a definitive detention order182 against Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio in the military criminal jurisdiction, considering that “the accused recognized that he received money from drug traffickers and distributed it among the codefendants.” It also indicated that the security measure would be served at the National Penitentiary Institution of Juanjuí, where he was detained at the time, serving the measure imposed in the ordinary jurisdiction, in which he was tried for the crime of illicit drug trafficking, and would remain available to the Military Court as many times as required. 183 The Permanent Military Judge of Tarapoto does not mention at any time the need to issue a precautionary measure for Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio because there are indications that he would interfere with the proceedings or evade justice. 208. In this regard, the State claimed that Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio was detained as per the order issued in the ordinary jurisdiction, so the definitive detention order did not cause him further injury. Although it is true that at the time that the Permanent Military Judge of Tarapoto decided to issue a definitive detention order against Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio he was serving a preventive detention decreed in the ordinary jurisdiction, since an imprisonment order was being issued, the judge had the duty to provide grounds for that decision, which did not occur in this case. iii. Conclusion regarding the preventive detention orders 209. Consequently, the Court declares that, by having failed to provide sufficient and specific grounds for a legitimate purpose compatible with the Convention when the preventive detention of Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio was ordered, neither of the resolutions analyzed (ordinary and military jurisdictions), the State violated his right to not be subjected to arbitrary detention, in violation of Articles 7(1) and 7(3) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. B.1.2 Regarding the lack of periodic review of the detention 210. The Court has indicated that a preventive detention or imprisonment must be subject to periodic review, so that it is not prolonged when the reasons for its adoption no longer exist. In this order of ideas, the judge does not have to wait until the moment of acquittal for a detained person to regain his freedom, but must periodically assess whether the reasons, need and proportionality of the measure persist, and whether the period of detention has exceeded the limits imposed by law and reason. Whenever it appears that the preventive detention does not satisfy these conditions, release must be decreed, without prejudice to the continuation of the corresponding proceedings.184 211. It can be inferred from the file that during the period from September 23, 1994, to March 4, 1999, (four years and six months), the authorities did not perform a review of the preventive detention imposed on the alleged victim. Thus, it did not verify whether it was suitable to maintain that measure, whether it sought purposes compatible with the Convention or if it met the principle of proportionality. Consequently, the detention of Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio during that period was In spite of its name -definitive detention- it constitutes a preventive detention because it was issued at the beginning of the proceedings against Mr. Jorge Enrique Rosadio Villavicencio, and on November 29, 1996, the public hearing was held before the Permanent War Council of the Sixth Judicial Military Area, in which the alleged victim was sentenced to 16 months of prison. 183 Cf. Definitive detention order issued by the Permanent Military Judge of August 9, 1995 (evidence file, folio 407). 184 Cf. Case of Bayarri v. Argentina, supra, para. 76, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 362. 182 47