elude the action of the justice authorities or will attempt to obstruct the judicial investigation. By imposing the injunctive measure, one seeks to effectively conduct the trial by neutralizing the procedural dangers could block the attainment of that purpose.273 222. In this respect, the Inter-American Court has established: The State’s obligation to not 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 is inferred from Article 7(3) of the Convention.274 223. As regards the right to the presumption of innocence that all persons accused of a crime enjoy, the Court has also noted that this right … establishes the obligation of the State not to restrict the liberty of a detained person beyond the limits strictly necessary to ensure that he will not impede the efficient development of an investigation and that he will not evade justice; pre-trial detention is, therefore, a precautionary rather than a punitive measure. This concept is laid down in a goodly number of instruments of international human rights law, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provides that pre-trial detention should not be the normal practice in relation to persons who are to stand trial (Art. 9(3)).275 224. The Commission observes that Article 7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure276 establishes that pre-trial detention is an exceptional measure. In addition, Article 221 of the Code of Criminal Procedure indicates that the right to personal liberty, as well as all other rights and guarantees recognized for every person by the Constitution of the State, as well as by the international treaties in force in Bolivia, and the Code of Criminal Procedure itself, may only be restricted … when it is indispensable to ensure the discovery of the truth, the development of the proceeding, and the application of the law. The provisions that authorize measures that restrict rights shall be applied and interpreted in keeping with Article 7 of this Code. Those measures will be authorized by reasoned judicial resolution, as regulated by this Code, and shall only last so long as the need for their application subsists. One may not restrict the liberty of the accused to guarantee compensation of civil damages, or the payment of legal costs or fines. 225. According to Article 236 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in force at the time of the facts, the pre-trial detention order should have been issued by the judge and contain: 1. The personal data of the accused or, if not known, such data as is used to identify him or her; 2. A succinct statement of the fact or facts attributed to him or her; 273 IACHR, Report No. 86/09, Case of 12,553 Jorge, José and Dante Peirano Basso v. Eastern Republic of Uruguay, August 6, 2009, paras. 80 and 81. 274 See I/A Court H.R., Case of López Álvarez. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 69; I/A Court H.R., Case of Palamara Iribarne. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, para. 198; I/A Court H.R., Case of Acosta Calderón. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, para. 111; I/A Court H.R., Case of Tibi. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 180; and I/A Court H.R., Case of Ricardo Canese. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, para. 153. 275 276 I/A Court H.R. Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 77. Article 7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: “The application of precautionary measures established in this Code shall be exceptional. When there is doubt in the application of a precautionary measure or other provisions that restrict rights or capacities of the accused, one should adopt the one most favorable to him or her.”