71 that justify that priority treatment. Articles 7.5 and 8.1 of the Convention differ as to their concepts of ‘reasonable time,’ in that Article 7 allows for an individual to be released without prejudice to the continuation of proceedings. The time established for 245 detention is necessarily much shorter than the period allotted for the entire trial. For that reason, any time that a custodial sentence is imposed that is shorter than the time a person was held in pretrial detention, that detention must be considered 246 unreasonable. A subsequent release or conviction does not exclude the possibility of 247 a violation of the reasonable length of time contemplated in the Convention. Maximum duration allowed by law 173. The reasonableness of the duration of pretrial detention is directly related to the establishment of maximum legal durations for this measure. On this point, the bodies of the Inter-American system have established that: (a) when the law sets a maximum duration for the detention of a suspect, it is clear that such limit may 248 not be exceeded; (b) when pretrial detention is prolonged beyond the maximum allowed by domestic law, it must be considered prima facie illegal (under the terms of Art. 7.2 of the Convention), regardless of the nature of the offense in question or the complexity of the case; in these circumstances, the State has the burden of proof in 249 justifying the extended period; and (c) establishing maximum durations in law does not guarantee that they are in line with the Convention, nor does it provide the State with broad authority to deprive a suspect of his liberty for that entire period; in each case, the continued existence of the grounds initially used to justify the detention must 250 be analyzed, without prejudice to what is provided by law. 174. In addition, judicial trends towards denying suspects release as a result of the expiration of the sentences underlying their charges that are based on 245 IACHR, Report No. 86/09, Case 12.553, Merits, Jorge, José, and Dante Peirano Basso, Uruguay, August 6, 2009, para. 127; IACHR, Report No. 12/96, Case 11.245, Merits, Jorge A. Giménez, Argentina, March 1, 1996, para. 110. 246 IACHR, Application from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in Case 11.663, Oscar Barreto Leiva, October 31, 2008, para. 136. Similarly, ECHR, Case of Liuiza v. Lithuania (Application No. 13472/06), Judgment of July 31, 2012 (Second Section of the Court), Dissenting Opinion of Judges Pinto de Albuquerque and Keller, para. 24. 247 para. 55. IACHR, Report No. 12/96, Case 11.245, Merits, Jorge A. Giménez, Argentina, March 1, 1996, 248 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. 249 IACHR, Report No. 135/11, Case 12.167, Merits, Hugo Oscar Argüelles and others, Argentina, October 31, 2011, para. 124. 250 IACHR, Report No. 84/10, Case 12.703, Merits, Raúl José Díaz Peña, Venezuela, July 13, 2010, para. 159; IACHR, Report No. 86/09, Case 12.553, Merits, Jorge, José, and Dante Peirano Basso, Uruguay, August 6, 2009, para. 139; IACHR, Application from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in Case 11.663, Oscar Barreto Leiva, October 31, 2008, para. 136.