such measures must include sufficient reasoning to permit an assessment of whether they are in keeping with the aforementioned conditions.191 100. With regard to the first element of the proportionality test – that is, the purpose of the measure that restricts liberty – the Court has indicated that a measure of this nature should only be imposed to satisfy a legitimate purpose, namely: that the accused will not impede the development of the proceedings or evade the action of justice. 192 It has also stressed that procedural risk cannot be presumed, but must be verified in each case, based on the true and objective circumstances of the specific case. 193 This is based on Articles 7(3), 7(5) and 8(2) of the Convention. 101. In addition, the Court has considered that any restriction of liberty which does not include sufficient reasoning that permits an assessment of whether it is in keeping with the foregoing conditions will be arbitrary. The judicial decision must be justified and indicate, clearly and with reasons, the existence of sufficient evidence that proves the unlawful conduct of the person concerned;194 this safeguards the presumption of innocence.195 Moreover, the personal characteristics of the supposed offender and the gravity of the offense he or she is charged with are not, in themselves, sufficient justification for pretrial detention.196 102. At the time of the events, the Code of Criminal Procedure of El Salvador stipulated: Article 292. To order the pretrial detention of the accused, the following requirements must be met: (1) that the existence of an act defined as an offense has been proved and that there is sufficient evidence to maintain, reasonably, that the accused is the probable perpetrator or participant, and (2) that the punishment for the offense is more than three years’ imprisonment, or that, even if the punishment is less than this, the judge considers that pretrial detention is necessary, based on the circumstances of the act, the public alarm that its perpetration has caused or the frequency with which similar acts are committed, or if the accused is subject to another precautionary measure. […] Article 294. Notwithstanding the provisions of the two preceding articles, and even if the offense warranted a greater punishment that the one indicated in paragraph 2 of article 292 of this Code, when the accused is not subject to other precautionary measures and it is reasonable to believe that he will not try to evade the action of justice, and also that the offense has not caused public alarm, pretrial detention may be substituted by another precautionary measure. Pretrial detention cannot be replaced with any other measure in the following crimes: homicide, aggravated homicide, kidnapping, offenses against sexual liberty, aggravated theft, extorsion, fraud against the public purse, aggravated civil disorder, the sale of persons, people smuggling, people trafficking, offenses established in Cf. Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, para. 128, and Case of Villarroel Merino et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 87. 191 192 Cf. Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Merits. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 77, and Case of Villarroel Merino et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 88. Cf. Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 357, and Case of Villarroel Merino et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 88. 193 Cf. Case of Herrera Espinoza et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2016. Series C No. 316, para. 143, and Case of Villarroel Merino et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 91. 194 Cf. Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Series C No. 207, para. 144, and Case of Villarroel Merino et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 91. 195 Cf. Case of Bayarri v. Argentina. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 30, 2008. Series C No. 187, para. 74, and Case of Villarroel Merino et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 91. 196 32