5. Any person detained shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to be released without prejudice to the continuation of the proceedings. His release may be subject to guarantees to assure his appearance for trial. (…) 37. For its part, the pertinent portion of Article 8(2) of the American Convention provides: Every person accused of a criminal offense has the right to be presumed innocent so long as his guilt has not been proven according to law. 1. General considerations on pretrial detention 38. The Inter-American Commission and Court have held that pretrial detention is limited by the principles of legality, presumption of innocence, necessity, and proportionality.34 The Court has also stated that it is a precautionary, rather than a punitive35, measure, and that, as the most severe measure that can be imposed on an accused, it should only be used exceptionally. In the view of both organs of the inter-American system, the rule should be for the accused to be on release until a decision is reached on their criminal responsibility.36 39. The Court and the Commission have underscored that the personal characteristics of the alleged perpetrator and the seriousness of the offense with which they are charged are not, in themselves, sufficient justification for pretrial detention.37 With respect to the reasons that may justify pretrial detention, the organs of the system have interpreted Article 7(3) of the American Convention in the sense that circumstantial evidence of guilt are a necessary condition but not sufficient alone to impose such a measure. In the words of the Court: (…) there must be sufficient evidence to allow reasonable supposition that the person committed to trial has taken part in the criminal offense under investigation.38 Nevertheless, “even in these circumstances, the deprivation of liberty of the accused cannot be based on general preventive or special preventive purposes, which could be attributed to the punishment, but […] based on a legitimate purpose, which is: to ensure that the accused does not prevent the proceedings from being conducted or elude the system of justice.”39 34 IACHR, Report on the Use of Pretrial Detention in the Americas, OEA/Ser.L/V/II. December 30, 2013, par. 20; I/A Court H.R., Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras, Judgment of February 1, 2006, Series C No. 141, par. 67; Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Peru, Judgment of November 25, 2005, Series C No. 137, par. 106; Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile, Judgment of November 22, 2005, Series C No. 135, par. 197; and Case of Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador, Judgment of June 24, 2005, Series C No. 129, par. 74. 35 I/A Court H.R., Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Merits. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, párr. 77. IACHR, Report on the Use of Pretrial Detention in the Americas, OEA/Ser.L/V/II. December 30, 2013, par. 21; I/A Court H.R., Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras, Judgment of February 1, 2006, Series C No. 141, par. 67; I/A Court H.R., Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile, Judgment of November 22, 2005, Series C No. 135, par. 196; and I/A Court H.R., Case of Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador, Judgment of June 24, 2005, Series C No. 129, par. 74. 36 37 IACHR, Report on the Use of Pretrial Detention in the Americas, OEA/Ser.L/V/II. December 30, 2013, par. 21; I/A Court H.R., Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras, Judgment of February 1, 2006, Series C No. 141, par. 69; Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Peru, Judgment of November 25, 2005, Series C No. 137, par. 106; Case of Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador, Judgment of June 24, 2005, Series C No. 129, par. 75; and Case of Tibi v. Ecuador, Judgment of September 7, 2004, Series C No. 114, par. 180. 38 I/A Court H.R., Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of November 17, 2009, Series C No. 206. par. 111. 39 I/A Court H.R., Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of November 17, 2009, Series C No. 206. par. 111, citing Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of November 21, 2007, Series C No. 170, par. 103; and Case of Servellón García et al. v. Honduras, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of September 21, 2006, Series C No. 152, par. 90. 7