81 201. Furthermore, the Commission notes that in the context of Article 46.1.a of the Convention, claims related to possible human rights violations arising from the imposition of pretrial detention have their own dynamics for the exhaustion of domestic remedies that are independent from those that apply to the criminal proceeding as a whole. Thus, in the case of Jorge Alberto Giménez v. Argentina, the Commission considered that “in the context of pre-trial detention, the presentation of the request for conditional release followed by the denial thereof suffices to 291 The request for release will depend, substantiate the exhaustion of remedies.” according to the specific case, on the relevant remedy available in the State in question. 7. Periodic review, due diligence and priority of processing Periodic review 202. As has already been established, it first falls to the domestic judicial authorities to ensure that the duration of the pretrial detention does not exceed a 292 reasonable time. Thus, the right to the presumption of innocence and the exceptional nature of pretrial detention give rise to the State’s duty to periodically review that the circumstances on which its initial imposition was based still exist. This process of subsequent appraisal is characterized by the fact that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, procedural risks tend to decrease with the passage of time. As a result, the State’s explanations of the need to keep a person in pretrial detention should be more convincing and better grounded as time progresses. 203. The Inter-American Court has established that “national authorities are responsible for assessing the pertinence of maintaining the precautionary measures they issue pursuant to their own body of laws,” including, in particular, pretrial detention. For this reason, the judge does not have to wait for an acquittal or the expiration of the maximum period allowed by law to order the termination of the measure. Whenever it appears that the pretrial detention no longer meets the initial conditions on which it was based, “the release of the person detained should be 293 ordered, without detriment to the continuation of the respective proceedings.” 204. In its judgment in the case of Yvon Neptune v. Haiti, in which it was established that the victim’s protracted and unjustified detention was not subject to 291 para. 57. IACHR, Report No. 12/96, Case 11.245, Merits, Jorge A. Giménez, Argentina, March 1, 1996, 292 ECHR, Case of McKay v. the United Kingdom (Application No. 543/03), Judgment of October 3, 2006 (Plenary of the Court), para. 45; ECHR, Case of Sardinas Albo v. Italy (Application No. 56271/00), Judgment of February 17, 2005 (First Section of the Court), para. 85; ECHR, Case of Labita v. Italy (Application No. 26772/95), Judgment of April 6, 2000 (Grand Chamber), para. 152; ECHR, Case of Letellier v. France (Application 12369/86), Judgment of June 26, 1991 (Plenary of the Court), para. 35. 293 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, paras. 74 and 76; I/A Court H.R., Case of Yvon Neptune v. Haiti, Merits. Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 180, para. 108.