83 207. The exceptional and temporary nature of pretrial detention requires that reviews as to its pertinence be conducted periodically. This is necessary given that the purpose of pretrial detention is to preserve the correct flow of the investigation and of the criminal trial, which are supposed to be conducted with speed and due 299 diligence. The responsibility for ensuring that these periodic reviews are carried out lies with the competent judicial authorities and the prosecution service. Thus, the IACHR considers that the innovative practices that States could implement to rationalize the use of pretrial detention include the creation of special programs for monitoring its duration and improving the scheduling systems for hearings. Due diligence and priority of processing 208. The right of all detainees to be judged within a reasonable time or to be released, without prejudice to the continuation of the proceedings (Articles 7.5 of the Convention and XXV of the Declaration), implies the correlative obligation for the State to “process criminal proceedings in which the accused is deprived of his liberty 300 with greater diligence and promptness.” The specificity of Article 7.5, compared to Article 8.1, stems from the fact that an individual who is accused and held in custody is entitled to have his or her case resolved on a priority basis and conducted with 301 diligence. In other words, the State has a particular obligation to speed up the 302 prosecution and avoid delays. This temporal limitation was not established in the interest of justice, but in the interest of the accused. When delays are the norm while 303 prompt and swift prosecutions the exception, situations of basic injustice arise. Consequently: It is important that States place all the human and material resources at the disposal of such proceedings so that, in situations of danger that justify pre-trial detention, the investigation is carried out as quickly as possible, thus preventing the restrictions placed on a person who has not been declared guilty from becoming a punishment before trial, 304 violating the right to defense and the principle of innocence. 299 See, mutatis mutandis: ECHR, Case of Bezicheri v. Italy (Application No. 11400/85), Judgment of October 25, 1989 (Grand Chamber), para. 21. 300 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. 120; 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. 301 IACHR, Report No. 86/09, Case 12.553, Merits, Jorge, José, and Dante Peirano Basso, Uruguay, August 6, 2009, paras. 76 and 127; IACHR, Report No. 12/96, Case 11.245, Merits, Jorge A. Giménez, Argentina, March 1, 1996, para. 110. 302 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. 32. 303 70. IACHR, Report 35/96, Case 10.832, Luis Lizardo Cabrera, Dominican Republic, April 7, 1998, para. 304 IACHR, Report No. 86/09, Case 12.553, Merits, Jorge, José, and Dante Peirano Basso, Uruguay, August 6, 2009, para. 132.