57 pre-trial detention and, consequently, on the State’s power to protect the purpose of 189 the proceedings by using this type of precautionary measure.” 136. With excessively prolonged pretrial incarceration, the risk of undermining the essence of the right to the presumption of innocence rises because it becomes increasingly empty and ultimately a mockery. In spite of its existence as a right, an innocent person is being deprived of his freedom, which is a severe punishment that 190 is legitimately imposed on those who have been convicted. 137. Respecting the right to the presumption of innocence requires the State to establish the existence of the applicable requirements for pretrial detention, 191 Accordingly, the principle of clearly and duly grounded, in each specific case. presumption of innocence is also violated when pretrial detention is imposed arbitrarily, or when its application is essentially determined by such factors as the nature of the crime, the expected punishment, or the mere existence of reasonable indications associating the accused to the offense. Such cases to a large extent entail the application of an anticipated sentence prior to the conclusion of the proceedings. This is due to several factors, including the fact that pretrial detention, with respect to the deprivation of liberty, is in no way different from incarceration ordered as the result of a conviction. A more serious situation arises when the ordering of pretrial detention for reasons such as those given is required by law: in such cases, judicial debate is “codified” through legislation and, as a result, the judges’ ability to assess the need and applicability of the measure according to the specific nature of the matter at hand is curtailed. 138. As will be discussed in Chapter V of this Report, the right to the presumption of innocence also triggers the State’s duty to ensure the effective separation of convicts and pretrial detainees at its detention centers, as well as to ensure that the latter receive treatment in line with their status as innocent people who are only being held in custody for precautionary reasons. Likewise, detainees who are 192 acquitted at trial in the first instance must be released immediately. 189 I/A Court H.R., Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206, para. 119. 190 IACHR, Report No. 86/09, Case 12.553, Merits, Jorge, José, and Dante Peirano Basso, Uruguay, August 6, 2009, para. 125; IACHR, Report No. 12/96, Case 11.245, Merits, Jorge A. Giménez, Argentina, March 1, 1996, para. 80. 191 I/A Court H.R., Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Series C No. 207, para. 144. 192 Similarly, UN, Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Annual Report to the Human Rights Council, A/HRC/4/40, published January 3, 2007, para. 78(b).