124. While laying emphasis on the need not to exceed the reasonable period, the Court verifies, as in the case of Gérard Bernard v. France, that there are relevant and sufficient grounds, and that the competent national authorities displayed “special diligence”.41 125. In the present Communication, the Commission notes that despite the fact that separation is not provided for under Cameroon Criminal Procedure Code, it was abused by the judicial authorities as noted above. The extension of the detention period was made possible particularly as a result of the abuse of this measure which is not provided for by the law. 126. Moreover, it is especially the lack of relevance and sufficiency of the grounds invoked to support the separation orders and to continue the detention which pose a problem. With more than ten separation and committal orders issued within a minimum period of four (4) years, the grounds for detention did not differ since the initial indictment. Moreover, at the admissibility stage, the Respondent State mostly presented arguments on the grounds for denying release. In this case, the Respondent State failed to argue the need to prevent the suspect’s escape, to preserve evidence and to prevent pressure on the witnesses. 127. Lastly, in such a long procedure, it cannot be considered that the authorities displayed the required diligence for a case involving pre-trial detention. The situation was aggravated by the refusal by the authorities to release the Complainant when after four (4) years of pre-trial detention the court found him not guilty and acquitted him of all the charges against him. The legality of detention is of paramount importance as underscored by the Working Group in 41 Gérard Bernard v. France (ECtHR 26 September 2006) paras 37-48. 37