unlimited power to achieve these ends, regardless of the seriousness of certain actions and the guilt of their alleged perpetrators. In particular, the authorities may not violate the rights recognized in the American Convention, such as the rights to the presumption of innocence, to personal liberty, to due process, and may not carry out unlawful or arbitrary detentions, among others. 183 Pretrial detention in itself is not contrary to international human rights law and is a measure that the States may adopt as long as it complies with conventional requirements. 155. Regarding the arbitrariness referred to in Article 7(3) of the American Convention, the Court has established that no one shall be subject to arbitrary arrest or imprisonment based on reasons and methods that – even though they are classified as legal - may be considered incompatible with respect for the fundamental rights of the individual because they are, among other things, unreasonable, unforeseeable or disproportionate. 184 Moreover, the domestic laws, the applicable procedures and the corresponding general principles, expressed or tacit, must also be compatible with the Convention. Thus the concept of “arbitrariness” should not be equated with “against the law,” but should be interpreted more broadly to include elements of inappropriateness, injustice and unpredictability.” 185 Article 8(2) also refers to the right to the presumption of innocence. 156. The Court has considered that for a precautionary measure restricting liberty not to become arbitrary and not to affect a defendant’s right to the presumption of innocence, it is necessary that: a) material assumptions related to the existence of an unlawful act and the link of the person being prosecuted to that act are present; b) the measure 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), 186 suitable to achieve the objective sought, necessary and strictly proportionate, 187 and c) the decision to impose it must be based on sufficient grounds to allow for an assessment of whether it complies with the above conditions. 188 157. Regarding the “proportionality test”, the Court has stated that it is up to the judicial authority to conduct an assessment of proportionality when ordering a measure that deprives a person of liberty. The Court has also considered that pretrial detention is a precautionary measure rather than a punitive measure, 189 which should be applied exceptionally as it is the most severe punishment that can be imposed on the accused for an offense for which he or she is entitled to 183 Cf. Case of Tzompaxtle Tecpile v. Mexico, supra, para. 95. Cf. Case of Gangaram Panday v. Suriname. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 21, 1994. Series C No. 16, para. 47; Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 25, 2018. Series C No. 354, para. 355; Case of Romero Feris v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 15, 2019. Series C No. 391, para. 91; Case of Tzompaxtle Tecpile et al. v. Mexico, supra, para. 96, 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. 86. 184 185 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 92; Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 355, and Case of Romero Feris v. Argentina, supra, para. 91, and Case of Tzompaxtle, Tecpile et al. v. Mexico, supra, para. 96. 186 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; Case of Women Victims of Sexual Torture in Atenco v. Mexico, supra, para. 251; Case of Romero Feris v. Argentina, supra, para. 92, and Case of Tzompaxtle Tecpile et al. v, Mexico, supra, para. 97. 187 Cf. Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, para. 197; Case of Women Victims of Sexual Torture in Atenco v. Mexico, supra, para. 251; Case of Romero Feris v. Argentina, supra, para. 92, and Case of Tzompaxtle Tecpile v. Mexico, supra, para. 96. 188 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; Case of Romero Feris v. Argentina, supra, para. 92, and Case of Tzompaxtle Tecpile v. Mexico, supra, para. 96. 189 Cf. Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 69, and Case of Tzompaxtle, Tecpile et al. v, Mexico, supra, para. 104. -41-