If the State fails to issue a judgment establishing blame justifies further holding the accused in pre-trial incarceration, based on the suspicion of guilt, then it is essentially substituting pre-trial detention for the punishment.46 45. Respect for the right to be presumed innocent also requires that the State demonstrate with clear and reasoned arguments in each specific case the existence of valid rules governing the applicability of pretrial detention.47 Accordingly, the principle of presumption of innocence is also violated when pretrial detention is imposed arbitrarily, or when its application is essentially determined by such factors as the nature of the crime, the expected punishment, or the mere existence of reasonable indicia implicating the accused.48 2. Analysis of the case 46. In this case, the Commission has taken it as a proven fact that Mr. Carranza Alarcón was held in pretrial detention from November 1994 to December 1998, when he was convicted in a judgment that became final. The order for that pretrial detention was given in the order to institute proceedings of August 17, 1993, and confirmed on October 28, 1993. The Commission recalls that the length of pretrial detention must be counted until the date of the final judgment.49 47. As to justification, as was mentioned in the establish facts, the basis cited for the propriety of pretrial detention in both decisions was Article 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 48. Article 177 of that Code, invoked as the grounds in both decisions, provided that the judge, “when he believes it necessary,” could order pretrial detention provided that there existed: (i) indicia to presume the existence of a criminal offense that would warrant deprivation of liberty as punishment; and (ii) indicia to presume that the accused had committed or was complicit in the commission of the offense that the proceeding concerned. That provision also required that “[t]he order shall specify the evidence supporting the incarceration order.”50 49. The Commission observes that this provision did not require the existence of procedural needs for ordering pretrial detention. On the contrary, it provided that it was sufficient for there to exist indicia of responsibility for a crime that would warrant deprivation of liberty as punishment. The Commission has held that, in practice, this norm inverts the exceptionality of pretrial detention and makes it the rule in cases punishable by imprisonment, since to order it, it is sufficient for there to exist a crime punishable by deprivation of liberty and “indicia of responsibility.”51 50. The justification for the decisions to impose pretrial detention on Mr. Carranza was essentially based on the evidence that pointed to his responsibility. In that regard, both the applicable norm and the decisions adopted on the basis thereof are arbitrary and, therefore, incompatible with the American Convention. While mention was made of the fact that the alleged victim was evading justice, from its examination of both decisions the Commission finds that the only effect of that reference was to order the police to apprehend him; it was not the basis for imposing pretrial detention from the point of view of procedural need. 46 IACHR, Report No. 12/96. Argentina. Case 11.245, March 1, 1996, par. 114. 47 I/A Court H.R., Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of November 20, 2009, Series C No. 207, par. 144. 48 IACHR, Report on the Use of Pretrial Detention in the Americas, OEA/Ser.L/V/II. December 30, 2013 par. 137. 49 IACHR, Report on the Use of Pretrial Detention in the Americas, OEA/Ser.L/V/II. December 30, 2013 par. 132. 50 Ecuadorian Code of Criminal Procedure of 1983, Article 177. (L. 134-PCL. RO 511: 10-jun-1983). Cf. I/A Court H.R., Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador, Judgment of November 12, 1997, Series C No. 35, par. 146; 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. 104. 51 IACHR, Report No. 40/14, Case 10.438, Report on Merits, Herrera Espinoza et al. Ecuador, July 17, 2015, par. 135. 9