investigation.” On March 9, 2002, Mr. Pichún Paillalao’s defense appealed the decision of March 4, 2002. On March 13, a hearing was held to decide this appeal, following which the Temuco Court of Appeal decided to confirm the decision appealed, as follows: Based on the circumstances of the act, the testimony of those present in the court, the seriousness of the offense investigated, and the personal history of the accused, and also taking into consideration the provisions of article 140 of the Criminal Procedural Code, the appealed decision of March 4 this year is confirmed, considering that the release of the accused Pascual Pichún Paillalao would be dangerous for society. b) Review of the need to maintain the pre-trial detention 348. Acting separately or jointly, the presumed victims requested repeatedly (February 22, June 14, July 4, and August 9, 2002) the review of the precautionary measure of pre-trial detention before the Traiguén Guarantees Court. The ruling was always adverse and the appeals filed were denied by the Temuco Court of Appeal (except in one case in which it was declared abandoned owing to the defense’s failure to appear349). The arguments on which the denials were based were, basically, that the danger to the security of society persisted owing to the egregious nature of the offenses attributed to the accused. In one of the adverse decisions, it was also asserted that “as the defense has said, the Guarantees Court must safeguard the innocence of the accused; however, this court must also safeguard the rights of the victim.”350 In another it explained that “in this regard the requirements of the three paragraphs of article 140 are met: the offense has been proved, there are well-founded presumptions to consider that they are the perpetrators, and also owing to the seriousness of the offenses for which they are in pre-trial detention and the severity of the punishment assigned to the offense.”351 In a subsequent decision, the court indicated that “having analyzed what has been said and also the information which it has seen in the case file, the requirements for maintaining the detention have not changed, because [the accused] have been indicted of an offense under Law No 18,314 that merits a severe punishment and, therefore, release would constitute a danger to society.”352 c.ii) Considerations of the Court 349. The Court considers that the decisions to adopt and to maintain pre-trial detention were not in keeping with the requirements of the American Convention that it should be based on sufficient evidence and seek a legitimate objective, and must be reviewed periodically. a) Insufficient probative elements 350. The decision to impose pre-trial detention on Aniceto Norín Catrimán (supra paras. 345 and 346) was based on testimony that was “confidential” because it had been decided that some of the investigation procedures would be closed. Moreover, additional arguments or explanation were not provided that, without revealing information regarding the evidence that needed to be kept confidential temporarily, would have provided more information that would have allowed the grounds for the judicial decision to be known and enabled the accused and his defense to contest the adoption of the precautionary measure of pre-trial detention. Therefore, it was not consistent with the requirements of the American Convention. 349 Decision issued on June 28, 2002, by the Temuco Court of Appeal (file of annexes to the Merits Report 176/10, appendix 1, folio 4370). 350 Decision issued on July 11, 2002, by the Traiguén Guarantees Court (file of annexes to the Merits Report 176/10, appendix 1, folios 4354 to 4364). 351 Decision issued on April 8, 2002, by the Traiguén Guarantees Court (file of annexes to the Merits Report 176/10, appendix 1, folio 4551). 352 Decision issued on June 19, 2002, by the Traiguén Guarantees Court (file of annexes to the Merits Report 176/10, appendix 1, folio 4345). 120