32 than a punitive measure, there is a “State obligation not to restrict the liberty of the person detained over and above limits that are strictly necessary to ensure that he does not impede the development of the proceedings or evade the action of justice.”101 Acting in any other way would be tantamount to anticipating the punishment, which violates general principles of law that are widely recognized, including the principle of presumption of innocence.102 Indeed, on previous occasions, the Court has found that, by depriving individuals whose criminal responsibility has not been established of liberty unnecessarily or disproportionately, the State has violated the right of all persons to be presumed innocent, recognized in Article 8(2) of the American Convention.103 The same conclusion should be reached if the State keeps a person in preventive detention over and above the temporal limits established by the right embodied in Article 7(5) of the American Convention (supra para. 70). 111. It has already been established that the victim remained in preventive detention for approximately 13 years and that this period exceeded the maximum time established by domestic law (supra para. 77). The Court also considers that, during this time, Mr. Bayarri was subjected to a criminal proceeding in which several judicial guarantees were violated (supra paras. 107 and 108). Based on all the above, the Court finds that the prolonged duration of the preventive detention of Juan Carlos Bayarri during the criminal proceeding that violated the American Convention converted it into a punitive rather than a precautionary measure, which denatured the measure. The Court finds that the State violated Mr. Bayarri’s right to be presumed innocent and, consequently, that it is responsible for the violation of Article 8(2) of the American Convention to the detriment of Juan Carlos Bayarri. Case 66,138 entitled “Bayarri Juan Carlos. Unlawful Coercion” A) Access to justice, right to be heard and for the case to be decide within a reasonable time, and effectiveness of the remedies 112. On November 19, 1991, Juan José Bayarri reported the unlawful detention of his son, Juan Carlos Bayarri (supra para. 59). On December 23, that year, the victim’s defense counsel filed a complaint based on the torture perpetrated against him. Both cases were joindered in case No. 66,138/96. With regard to the latter, Court of First Instance No. 13 issued a temporary stay of proceedings in favor of those accused on two occasions.104 The greater part of these decisions was revoked by Chamber VII of the National Criminal and Correctional Appeals Chamber of the Federal Capital, considering that the analysis of the facts reported by Juan Carlos Bayarri required other probative measures to be taken.105 101 Cf. case of Suarez Rosero, supra note 56, para. 70; and case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez, supra note 9, para. 145. 102 Cf. case of Suarez Rosero, supra note 56, para. 77; and case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez, supra note 9, para. 146 103 Cf. case of Suarez Rosero, supra note 56, para. 77; and case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez, supra note 9, para. 146 104 Cf. brief of December 223, 1991, submitted by Juan Carlos Bayarri’s defense counsel (helpful evidence submitted by the State, File-66.138-1996-Cuerpo1.pdf, page 7); judgment of September 1, 1996, delivered by National Court of First Instance No. 13 (file of attachments to the pleadings and motions brief, folios 4782 to 4790), and judgment of July 2, 1998, delivered by National Court of First Instance No. 13 (file of attachments to the application, attachment 4.1, folios 528 to 537). 105 Cf. decision issued by the National Criminal and Correctional Appeals Chamber on April 1, 1997, in the case, “Ramírez, Miguel A. and another–Unlawful Coercion–dismissal of proceedings 13/140-VII (file of attachments to the pleadings and motions brief, folios 4841 to 4847 and file of attachments to the application, attachment 1(1),