law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense. In the case of ACOSTA- CALDERON V. ECUADOR JUDGMENT OF 24™ JUNE 2005, Inter-American court of Human Rights, the court held that: “the principle of presumption of innocence constitutes a foundation for judicial guarantees. The obligation of the State is not to restrict the detainee’s liberty beyond the limits strictly necessary to ensure that he will not impede the efficient development of the investigations and that he will not evade justice derived from that established in Article 8 (2) of the Convention. In this sense, the preventive detention is a cautionary measure and not a punitive one. This concept is laid down in multiple struments of International Human Rights Law. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides that preventive detention should not be the normal practice in relation to persons who are to stand trial (Article 9 (3). It would constitute a violation to the covenant to keep a person whose criminal responsibility has not been established detained for a disproportionate period of time. This would be tantamount to anticipating a sentence, which is at odd with universally recognized general principles of law.” In the instant case the criminal responsibility of the applicant has not been established, he has not been brought before any judicial authority nor charged for any criminal offence. The continued detention of the applicant without being tried is unlawful and a violation of his rights under the various international instruments referred to above. The act of the Defendant in the continued detention of the Applicant in circumstances where he had been granted bail in three different Courts of the Defendant, satisfied the conditions of bail and released, only to be re-arrested by the Defendant and detained incommunicado and without charge is to say the lease condemnable. Granted the Applicant may have committed a heinous crime for which charges are already pending in three Domestic Courts of the Defendant, which had granted him bail, he is entitled to due process. 47