whole process of hearing the defendants was completed on 5 January 2005, at which time the court had set a date for judgement. It avers that to render itts judgement, the court had to cautiously review a total of 3703 pages of evidencce presented by both sides. 206. The Respondent State argues that after examing the evidences provided by the parties, the court had to cautiuosly review a total of 3,703 pages of evidences and written arguments. It says that on 11 December 2006, the judgment written in 792 pages found all the defendants, except one, guilty of the charges. It says that on 11 January 2007, the court found most of the defendants guilty as charged and sentenced them to twenty three years to life imprisonment. It also stated that as most were disatisfied with the judgement they lodged apppeals in March 2007. 207. As an accused person enjoys the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, it is only appropriate to establish whether he or she is innocent or guilty as rapidly as possible. Proceedings should therefore be as expeditious as possible, especially where the accused person is in prison. The African Commission is yet to come up with a decision on the matter. However, Articles 60 and 61 of the African Charter enjoins the African Commission to draw inspiration from, inter alia, other international law instruments and bodies.56. By virtue of this Article, therefore, the Commission can draw inspiration from the decisions of the Inter-American Commission and Court, particularly bearing in mind the similarities within the two systems. 208. In the case of Dayra María Levoyer Jiménez v. Ecuador, the InterAmerican Commission again emphasized a similar interpretation of the right to be presumed innocent under Article 8 (2) of the American Convention. It maintained that depriving Mrs. Levoyer Jiménez, the petitioner, of her liberty for a period that exceeded one half the maximum penalty established for the offence is a violation of the principle of presumption of innocence established in the American Convention. It noted that in the present case the imposition of preventive detention for an indefinite period was tantamount to anticipating the punishment of Mrs Jimenez. The Commission held further that „universally accepted general principles of law prohibit anticipating the punishment before sentencing‟. Stressing the interrelatedness of anticipatory punishment and violation of the presumption of innocence, the Inter-American Commission found that Ecuador had violated Jiménez‟s right to be presumed innocent. 56 See for example Communication 211/98- Legal Resources Foundation/Zambia, paragraph 58 and Communication 155/96- The Social and Economic Rights Action Center and the Center for Economic and Social Rights/Nigeria paragraphs 48, 52, 57 and 63. 48