A. Right to Personal Liberty and the Presumption of Innocence in connection with the Preventive Detention of Mr. Romero Feris (Articles 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.5, 7.6183 and 8.2184 of the American Convention) 1. General Observations on Preventive Detention 103. The Commission and the Court have pointed out that preventive detention is limited by the principles of legality, presumption of innocence, necessity and proportionality.185 Likewise, it has indicated that it is a precautionary and not a punitive measure186 and is the severest that can be imposed on an accused and should only be imposed in exceptional cases. In the view of both organs of the Inter-American system, the rule should be the freedom of the accused while their criminal responsibility is being determined.187 104. The Court and the Commission have emphasized that the personal characteristics of the alleged perpetrator and the seriousness of the alleged offense are not, in themselves, sufficient justification for preventive detention. 188 Regarding the reasons that may justify preventive detention, the organs of the System have interpreted Article 7.3 of the American Convention as meaning that indications of responsibility are a necessary but not sufficient condition for imposing such a measure. In the words of the Court 183 Article 7 of the American Convention establishes, so far as is relevant, the following: 1. Every person has the right to personal liberty and security. 2. No one shall be deprived of his physical liberty except for the reasons and under the conditions established beforehand by the constitution of the State Party concerned or by a law established pursuant thereto. 3. No one shall be subject to arbitrary arrest or imprisonment (…) 5. Any person detained shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to be released without prejudice to the continuation of the proceedings. His release may be subject to guarantees to assure his appearance for trial. (…) 6. Anyone who is deprived of his liberty shall be entitled to recourse to a competent court, in order that the court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his arrest or detention and order his release if the arrest or detention is unlawful. In States Parties whose laws provide that anyone who believes himself to be threatened with deprivation of his liberty is entitled to recourse to a competent court in order that it may decide on the lawfulness of such threat, this remedy may not be restricted or abolished. The interested party or another person in his behalf is entitled to seek these remedies. 184 Article 8.2 of the American Convention establishes, where relevant, the following: Every person accused of a criminal offense has the right to be presumed innocent so long as his guilt has not been proven according to law (...) 185 IACHR. Report on the Use of Pretrial Detention in the Americas. OEA/Ser.L/V/II. December 30, 2013, para. 20; I/A Court H.R. Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 67; I/A Court H.R., Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Peru. 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. 186 I/A Court H.R. Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 77. IACHR. Report on the Use of Pretrial Detention in the Americas. OEA/Ser.L/V/II. December 30, 2013, para. 21. I/A Court H.R. 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. 187 188 IACHR. Report on the Use of Preventive Detention in the Americas. OEA/Ser.L/V/II. December 30, 2013, para. 21; I/A Court H.R. Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 69; Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Peru. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, para. 106; Case of Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, para. 75; and Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 180. 25