inspection also failed to definitively prove that a crime had been committed in such a way that the concept of flagrant violation would be applicable, meaning that the alleged victim was detained under that concept but based on the suspicion of having committed a crime. 92. The Commission finds that the circumstances of this case, taken together, can in no way be equated with a situation of a flagrant violation. Extending the concept of flagrant violation to cases such as this one would mean empowering the police to make arrests without the corresponding warrant and without having witnessed a criminal act, opening the door to a series of abuses76 by State agencies. 93. Based on these considerations, the IACHR finds that the State violated Article 7(2), in conjunction with article 1(1) of the American Convention, to the detriment of Manuela. 2. The right to not be arbitrarily deprived of liberty, principle of presumption of innocence, and right to judicial protection 94. The Commission and the Court have indicated that pretrial detention is limited by the principles of legality, presumption of innocence, necessity, and proportionality.77 They have also indicated that it is a precautionary measure, not a punitive one,78 and, because it is the most severe precautionary measure that can be applied, must be applied exceptionally. Considering the stances of both bodies of the inter-American system, the rule should be that the accused remains free while establishment of criminal responsibility is weighed.79 95. Both bodies of the system have underscored that the personal circumstances of the alleged perpetrator and the gravity of the crime of which the perpetrator is accused are not, in and of themselves, justification enough for pretrial detention. 80 Regarding the reasons that may justify pretrial detention, the bodies of the inter-American system have interpreted Article 7(3) of the American Convention in the sense that evidence of guilt is necessary but not sufficient for application of that measure. As the Inter-American Court has found, there must be sufficient evidence to allow reasonable supposition that the person committed to trial has taken part in the criminal offense under investigation.81 Nevertheless, “even in these circumstances, the deprivation of liberty of the accused cannot be based on general preventive or special preventive purposes, which could be attributed to the punishment, but […] based on a legitimate purpose, which is: to ensure that the accused does not prevent the proceedings from being conducted or elude the system of justice.”82 96. Along these lines, any decision to restrict the right to personal liberty through the use of pretrial detention must provide sufficient case-by-case grounds that make it possible to evaluate whether the detention meets the conditions necessary for its application.83 Report of the Working Group on Forced or Involuntary Disappearances, Mission to Mexico, December 20, 2011, para. 89; Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Mission to Mexico, December 29, 2014, para. 47. 77 IACHR. Report on the Use of Pretrial Detention in the Americas. OEA/SER.L/V/II. December 30, 2013. para. 20. Inter-American Court. Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 67; Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Rojas. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, para. 106; Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135. para. 197; and, Case of Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, para. 74. 78 Inter-American Court. Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 77. 79 IACHR. Report on the Use of Pretrial Detention in the Americas. OEA/SER.L/V/II. December 30, 2013. para. 21; Inter-American Court. Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 67; Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135. para. 196; and, Case of Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, para. 74. 80 IACHR. Report on the Use of Pretrial Detention in the Americas. OEA/SER.L/V/II. December 30, 2013. para. 21; Inter-American Court. Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 69. 81 Inter-American Court. Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206, para. 111. 82 Inter-American Court. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 103. 83 IACHR. Report on the Use of Pretrial Detention in the Americas. OEA/SER.L/V/II. Doc. 46/13, December 30, 2013, para. 21. 76 17