- 92 - them from hindering the development of the proceedings or evading justice. To the contrary, after describing the evidence based on which the judge reached the conclusion that the corpus delicti was reasonably proved, as well as the probable responsibility of the accused, he proceeded directly and without further justification to order preventive detention. The same is true of the preventive detention ordered by the Second Criminal Trial Court on May 10, 2006, in the context of criminal proceeding 95/2006, in which María Patricia Romero Hernández was subjected to preventive detention.352 253. Consequently, the Court considers that the State violated Article 7(1) and 7(3) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, based on the orders of preventive detention issued against the eleven women victims in this case. 254. Furthermore, the representatives argued that “after having been deprived of their liberty unlawfully, the victims remained detained for days or even years.” In this regard, the Court has indicated that ordering preventive detention requires considering the proportionality of this measure based on the evidence and the facts investigated. If there is no proportionality, the measure will be arbitrary. Article 7(3) of the Convention reveals the State’s obligation not to restrict the liberty of a detainee more than is strictly necessary to ensure that he or she will not hinder the development of the investigations or evade justice. The Convention is violated when a person whose criminal responsibility has not been established is deprived of their liberty for an excessive length of time, which is therefore disproportionate. This is equal to punishing them in advance.353 255. This Court has also noted that preventive detention is the most severe measure that can be applied to a person accused of an offense, and that it is a precautionary rather than a punitive measure.354 Therefore, it must be subject to periodic review so that it does not continue when the reasons for its adoption no longer subsist. The domestic authorities are responsible for assessing whether or not it is pertinent to maintain the precautionary measures issued under their legal system. When performing this task, the domestic authorities must provide sufficient grounds so that the reasons why the restriction of liberty is maintained may be known and, to be compatible with Article 7(3) of the American Convention, these should be based on the need to ensure that the detainee will not hinder the development of the investigations or evade justice.355 256. In this case, the facts that have been acknowledged reveal that, between May 13 and 15, 2006, Ana María Velasco Rodríguez, Yolanda Muñoz Diosdada, María Cristina Sánchez Hernández, Angélica Patricia Torres Linares and Bárbara Italia Méndez Moreno were “released.” 356 However, Cf. Order on the constitutional time limit of the preventive detention of the victim, Patricia Romero Hernández (evidence file, folios 32110 and 32238), and order on the constitutional time limit of the preventive detention of several victims (evidence file, folios 32253, 32254 and 32580 a 32583). 352 Cf. Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Merits. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 77, and Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, paras. 68 and 69. 353 Cf. Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Merits. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 77, and Case of Bayarri v. Argentina. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 30, 2008. Series C No, 187, para. 69. 354 Cf. Case of Bayarri v. Argentina. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 30, 2008. Series C No, 187, para. 74, and Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275, para. 163. 355 The Court notes that the State refers to the “release” [externación] of those indicated, a term that would appear to refer to the moment when the court took the decision to release them on bail, which might or might not be the date on which the women left prison. 356