the legality of criminal proceedings.” They emphasized that the pretrial detention ordered against the presumed victim was based on the court’s presumption of guilt and also argued that the presumed victim had no remedy to contest the imposition of pretrial detention. 96. The State pointed out that the initial detention was in keeping with the Code of Criminal Procedure. Regarding the arbitrary nature of the pretrial detention, El Salvador argued that the judges who intervened in the case, “first, considered that the crime of homicide had been established and, second, had sufficient evidence to reasonably consider the ‘positive probability of the defendant’s participation’ in this, without the presumption of innocence in her favor having been adversely affected to date. B. Considerations of the Court 97. The Court has maintained that the essential content of Article 7 of the American Convention is the protection of the liberty of the individual against any arbitrary or unlawful interference by the State.186 This article contains two very different types of regulations, one general and the other specific. The general aspect is found in the first paragraph: “[e]very person has the right to personal liberty and security.” While the specific aspect is composed of a series of guarantees that protect the right not to be deprived of liberty unlawfully (Article 7(2)) or arbitrarily (Article 7(3)), to be informed of the reasons for the detention and the charges (Article 7(4)), to judicial control of the deprivation of liberty and the reasonableness of the time of pretrial detention (Article 7(5)), to contest the lawfulness of the detention (Article 7(6)) and not to be detained for debt (Article 7(7)). Any violation of paragraphs 2 to 7 of Article 7 of the Convention will necessarily result in the violation of Article 7(1). 187 98. In the instant case, a series of violations of personal liberty have been alleged. The Court only has sufficient evidence to examine the arguments concerning the presumed victim’s pretrial detention. 99. According to this Court’s case law, pretrial detention is the most severe measure that can be applied to anyone charged with an offense. Consequently, it should only be applied exceptionally.188 To ensure that a precautionary measure that restricts liberty is not arbitrary, it is necessary that: (i) substantive presumptions exist relating to an unlawful act and to the connection of the defendant to that act; (ii) the measure that restricts liberty complies with the four elements of the “proportionality test”; in other words, the purpose of the measure must be legitimate (compatible with the American Convention),189 appropriate to comply with the purpose sought, necessary, and strictly proportionate,190 and (iii) the decision imposing Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 84, and Case of Acosta Martínez et al. v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2020. Series C No. 410, para. 76. 186 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 54, and Case of Acosta Martínez et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 76. 187 Cf. Case of the “Juvenile Re-education Institute v. Paraguay. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 228, and Case of Villarroel Merino et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 24, 2021. Series C No. 430, para. 83. 188 Cf. Case of Servellón García et al. v. Honduras. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 21, 2006. Series C No. 152, para. 89, and Case of Villarroel Merino et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 87. 189 Cf. Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, para. 197, and Case of Villarroel Merino et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 87. 190 31