82. Therefore, this Court considers that the sole criterion of the existence of indications that permitted a reasonable supposition that the individual subjected to the proceedings had taken part in the wrongful act investigated is not sufficient to justify imposing a measure of deprivation of liberty. Rather, it is essential to have recourse to elements that relate to the legitimate purpose of the measure – that is, the possible obstruction of the normal development of the criminal proceedings or the possibility of evasion from the action of justice – that lead to the conclusion that the measure of preventive detention is necessary and proportionate to the objective pursued.81 On this basis, the Court concludes that the decision of June 29, 1994, ordering the preventive detention of Mr. Jenkins was unsubstantiated because it did not set out the reasons why the measure sought a legitimate purpose and was necessary, appropriate and proportionate to achieve this objective. Consequently, the State is internationally responsible for the violation of Article 7(1) and (3) of the Convention, in relation to Articles 8(2) and 1(1) of this instrument. b.2 Duration of the preventive detention 83. The Court has indicated that one of the characteristics required of a measure of preventive or pre-trial detention to ensure that it is in keeping with the provisions of the Convention is that it be subject to periodic review82 so that it does not continue when the reasons for its adoption no longer subsist. Therefore, a judge does not have to wait until an acquittal is handed down for a person who is detained to recover their freedom, but should periodically evaluate whether the reasons for, and the necessity and proportionality of, the measure remain and whether the duration of the detention has exceeded the limits imposed by law and reasonableness. Whenever it appears that the preventive detention does not meet those conditions, the release of the persons concerned must be ordered, without prejudice to the respective proceedings continuing.83 84. In this regard, Article 7(5) of the Convention imposes temporal limits on the duration of preventive detention and, consequently, on the State’s authority to ensure the objectives of the proceedings by this precautionary measure. When the duration of preventive detention exceeds a reasonable time, the State may limit the freedom of the defendant by other measures that are less harmful than deprivation of liberty to ensure his appearance at trial.84 Therefore, even when there are reasons to retain an individual in preventive detention, Article 7(5) guarantees that he must be released if the duration of the detention has exceeded a reasonable time.85 85. This Court has noted that it is the domestic authorities who are responsible for assessing the pertinence of maintaining the precautionary measures they issue pursuant to their respective laws. When doing so, the domestic authorities must provide sufficient justification to allow the reasons why the restriction of liberty is maintained to be known.86 Also, to guarantee that preventive detention does not become an arbitrary deprivation of liberty pursuant to Article 7(3) of the American Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, supra, para. 92, Case of Argüelles et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 288, para. 120, Case of Wong Ho Wing v. Peru, supra, para. 248, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 356. 81 Cf. Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, Members and Activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 29, 2014. Series C No. 279, para. 311, and Case of the Women Victims of Sexual Torture v. Mexico, supra, para. 255. 82 Cf. Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 362, and Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, supra, para. 117. 83 84 Cf. Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 361, and Case of Argüelles et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 129. Cf. Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 362, and Case of Bayarri v. Argentina. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 30, 2008. Series C No. 187, para. 74. 85 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez vs. Ecuador, supra, para. 107, and Case of the Women Victims of Sexual Torture v. Mexico, supra, para. 255. 86 22