68 they will appear before the judge [...] because States are simply not capable of 229 The WGAD has also stated that, guaranteeing that they will appear in court.” deprivation of liberty must not merely be formally ordered in accordance with the law. The right to personal liberty also requires that States make use of incarceration “only insofar as it is necessary to meet a pressing societal need, and in a manner 230 proportionate to that need” (emphasis added). Thus, the Commission reiterates that deprivation of liberty for minor offenses is inconsistent with the principle of 231 proportion. Reasonableness 165. In connection with the criterion of reasonableness, the Inter-American Court has ruled that Article 7.5 of the Convention “imposes temporal limits on the duration of pre-trial detention and, consequently, on the State’s power to protect the 232 purpose of the proceedings by using this type of precautionary measure.” As has been discussed, keeping a person incarcerated for longer than is reasonable would equate, in 233 practice, to a form of anticipated sentence. However, “even when there are reasons for keeping a person in preventive detention, Article 7(5) guarantees that he will be 234 released if the detention period has exceeded a reasonable time.” 229 UN, Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Annual Report presented to the Human Rights Council, A/HRC/4/40, published January 3, 2007, para. 69. 230 UN, Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Annual Report presented to the Human Rights Council, E/CN.4/2006/7, published December 12, 2005, para. 63. 231 IACHR, Fifth Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Guatemala, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.111 Doc. 21 rev., adopted April 6, 2001, Ch. VII, para. 11. See also IACHR, Press Release 76/11 – IACHR Recommends Adoption of a Comprehensive Public Policy on Prisons in Uruguay, Washington, D.C., July 25, 2011, Annex, available at http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/media_center/PReleases/2011/076A.asp, para. 46. Similarly: ECHR, Case of Ladent v. Poland (Application No. 11036/03), Judgment of March 18, 2008 (Fourth Section of the Court), para. 56. 232 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; I/A Court H.R., Case of Bayarri v. Argentina. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of October 30, 2008. Series C No. 187, para. 70. Similarly, the European Court has stated that the purpose of Art. 5(3) of the European Convention is essentially to allow the provisional release of the accused once his incarceration is no longer reasonable. ECHR, Case of X.Y. v. Hungary (Application No. 43888/08), Judgment of March 19, 2013 (Second Section of the Court), para. 40; ECHR, Case of McKay v. the United Kingdom (Application No. 543/03), Judgment of October 3, 2006 (Grand Chamber), para. 41; ECHR, Case of Neumeister v. Austria (Application No. 1936/63), Judgment of June 27, 1968 (Grand Chamber), para. 4. 233 I/A Court H.R., Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 69; I/A Court H.R., Case of Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, para. 111; I/A Court H.R., Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 180; I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute” v. Paraguay. Judgment of September 2, 2004, Series C No. 112, para. 229; I/A Court H.R., Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 77. Similarly, IACHR, Report No. 86/09, Case 12.553, Merits, Jorge, José, and Dante Peirano Basso, Uruguay, August 6, 2009, para. 133; IACHR, Report No. 2/97, Case 11.205, Merits, Jorge Luis Bronstein and others, Argentina, March 11, 1997, para. 12; IACHR, Third Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Paraguay, Ch. IV, para. 34. 234 I/A Court H.R., Case of Bayarri v. Argentina. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of October 30, 2008. Series C No. 187, para. 74.