c) Review of the need to maintain the five presumed victims in pre-trial detention 330. Acting separately or together, on reiterated occasions (April 1, May 30, June 18, September 12 and 24, October 7 and 13, and November 24, 2003), the presumed victims requested the Collipulli First Instance Guarantees Court to review the precautionary measure of pre-trial detention. In all the cases, the court denied the requests, and the corresponding appeals were also denied. In general, the denials were based on the argument that the release would be “dangerous for the security of society” or that the circumstances that made the pretrial detention advisable had not changed. In one case, the court added, “furthermore, […] at this time there is no other precautionary measure that would ensure the objectives of the proceedings.”347 Regarding the requests of September 12, 2003, and thereafter, no decision was taken because, at the request of the Public Prosecution Service, the Temuco Court of Appeal had ordered that no change be made in the situation. 331. In a brief of January 8, 2004, the defense of the five presumed victims requested a hearing to review their precautionary measures “as ordered by article 145.2 of the Criminal Procedural Code, because six months had passed since the last time that this onerous precautionary measure had been revised [and their] clients had been deprived of liberty for more than a year.” The following day, the Collipulli Guarantees Court of First Instance with combined jurisdiction decided that “[s]ince an order that no change be made has been issued in these proceedings, the request is inadmissible at this time.” On January 28, 2004, the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile decided that “there is no reason to annul the “no change” order, although this should be restricted to the processing of background information, without this precluding a decision on the pre-trial detention of the accused.” The court set the date of February 13, 2004, for the hearing to review the precautionary measure imposed on the five accused. 332. After this hearing, citing among other grounds, “the international treaties referred to by the Public Criminal Defender,” the court decided to substitute the pre-trial detention by other precautionary measures consisting in the obligation to appear before the corresponding authority periodically, and the prohibition to leave the country, and an “order of immediate release” was issued. On February 18, 2004, the prosecutor and two complainants filed an appeal against the said decision and, on February 24, 2004, a hearing was held before the Temuco Court of Appeal which, citing among other grounds, Articles 7(1) and 7(2) “of the Pact of San José, Costa Rica,” decided unanimously to confirm the decision appealed and impose on the accused, also, the “precautionary measures of night-time house arrest […] with the obligation to appear […] personally before the authority responsible for monitoring compliance with the measure that had been decided.” b.ii) Considerations of the Court 333. The Court considers that the decisions to adopt and maintain the pre-trial detention were not in accordance with the requirements of the American Convention that they be based on sufficient probative elements – with the exception of the decision regarding Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia which did comply with this requirement (infra para. 336) – and seek a legitimate objective, as well as the obligation to conduct periodic reviews. a) Insufficient probative elements 334. The judicial decision that initially ordered the pre-trial detention of Jaime Marileo Saravia, José Benicio Huenchunao Mariñán, Juan Ciriaco Millacheo Licán and Patricia Troncoso Robles did not comply with the requirement that it be based on sufficient probative elements reasonably to suppose that the said individuals had taken part in the criminal act investigated, 347 Decision issued on June 23, 2003, by the Collipulli court on the hearing to review the precautionary measure held that same day (file of annexes to the Merits Report 176/10, Appendix 1, Annex 7, folios 8421-8424). 116