351. The judicial decision ordering the pre-trial detention of Pascual Pichún Paillalao was based on the existence of elements and “presumptions” concerning the perpetration of the criminal act and the accused’s participation in it (supra para. 347). Even though the written judicial decision does not provide details of the evidence on which this conclusion was based, during the hearing reference was made to elements that, at that stage, could be considered to implicate Mr. Pascual Pichún in the incident investigated. The defense did not contest this aspect in the appeal. Consequently, the Court does not find that the State failed to comply with this first requirement of the measure being based on the existence of sufficient element implicating the accused in the wrongful act under investigation. b) Lack of a legitimate objective 352. It has been proved that the grounds for the decision to impose and maintain the pre-trial detention of Messrs. Norín Catrimán and Pichún Paillalao was that their release would constitute a “grave danger for society,” or “considering [their release] dangerous for the security of society” (supra paras. 345 to 347). To this end, criteria such as the “number of offenses investigated,” the “severity of the punishment,” the “seriousness of the offense investigated” and the “personal history of the accused,” were taken into account that, in themselves, do not justify pre-trial detention, and that were not assessed when evaluating the need for the measure in the circumstances of the specific case. Even though the decision ordering the pre-trial detention of Mr. Pascual Pichún indicated that it was “essential for the success of the investigation,” this assertion was not justified in a way that allowed it to be known if it was considered that the release of the accused would in some way affect the implementation of specific measures. c) Inadequate periodic review 353. None of the judicial decisions adopted in relation to the requests to review the maintenance of the pre-trial detention of Messrs. Norín Catriman and Pichún Paillalao (supra para. 348) analyzed the need to provide the reasons that justified the maintenance of the precautionary measure. Nor was any reference made to any legitimate procedural objective that made it necessary to maintain them. None of the judicial decisions assessed factors or criteria that could be related to a legitimate objective that would have justified the need for the measure in the specific case. d) Presumption of innocence 354. Since their criminal responsibility had not yet been established, the presumed victims had the right to be presumed innocent under Article 8(2) of the American Convention. This gave rise to the State’s obligation not to restrict their freedom more than strictly necessary, because pre-trial detention is a precautionary rather than a punitive measure.353 Consequently, the State restricted the liberty of the presumed victims without respecting the right to the presumption of innocence, and violated their right not to be subject to arbitrary imprisonment established in Article 7(3) of the Convention. *** 355. Based on the above, it must be concluded that the State violated the rights to personal liberty, not to be subject to arbitrary imprisonment, and not to suffer pre-trial detention in conditions that were not consistent with international standards established in Article 7(1), 7(3) and 7(5) of the American Convention, and the right to the presumption of innocence, established in Article 8(2) of the American Convention, all in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention, to the detriment of Segundo Aniceto Norín Catrimán and Pascual Huentequeo Pichún Paillalao. 353 Cf. Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Merits, para. 77, and Case of J. v. Peru, para. 371. 121