97. In addition to its effects on the exercise of the right to personal liberty, both the Commission and the Court have found that the improper use of pretrial detention can have an impact on the principle of presumption of innocence established in Article 8(2) of the American Convention. Respect for the right of presumption of innocence requires the State to provide clear and well-founded grounds and proof of the existence of valid reasons for ordering pretrial detention. 84 Therefore, the principle of presumption of innocence is also violated when pretrial detention is ordered arbitrarily, or when based essentially on the type of crime, the expectation of punishment, or the mere existence of reasonable evidence implicating the person accused.85 98. Also, the IACHR recalls that States have a general obligation to provide effective judicial remedies to people who allege having been victims of human rights violations (Article 25), which should be in accordance with the rules of legal due process (Article 8(1)). For a remedy to exist it is not enough for it to be provided for by law; rather, it must be truly effective in establishing whether there has been a violation of human rights and in providing redress.86 99. The Commission recalls that in this case, pretrial detention was ordered based on the nature and gravity of the crime committed. According to the section on proven facts, on March 3, 2008, the Justice of the Peace of the city of Cacopera ordered the alleged victim placed in pretrial detention on concluding that the accused could obstruct the investigation in view of the gravity of the crime. It also added that Article 294 of the Criminal Procedural Code states that "for these types of crimes, no other measure shall be granted." The measure was upheld on June 5 and July 7, 2008, by the Second Trial Court of San Francisco Gotera. Lastly, the court found that “the gravity of the punishment she would face should she be found guilty in the trial could cause her to flee or obstruct the investigation.” 100. The IACHR recalls that El Salvador's Criminal Procedural Code explicitly establishes in Article 294 that in the case of aggravated homicide and other crimes, pretrial detention cannot be replaced with any other measure.87 101. Consequently, and in keeping with the standards described herein, the Commission concludes that from the beginning, the pretrial detention of Manuela was arbitrary and failed to adhere to the principle of presumption of innocence, in violation of article 7(3) and 8(2), in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the American Convention. The IACHR also concludes that the alleged victim did not have an effective remedy for challenging the illegality of her pretrial detention under the Convention, taking into account the law in question and its application in this specific case, for which reason the State also violated Article 25(1) in conjunction with articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention. B. Rights to a fair trial88 and to judicial protection89 1. The right to defense and judicial protection Inter-American Court. Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Series C No. 207, para. 144. 85 IACHR, Report on the Use of Pretrial Detention in the Americas. OEA/SER.L/V/II. December 30, 2013. para. 137. 86 Inter-American Court, Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado - Alfaro et al.). Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 158. Para. 125; Inter-American Court, Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125. Para. 61; Inter-American Court, Case of the “Five Pensioners." Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98. Para. 136. 87 Article 294 of El Salvador's Criminal Procedural Code establishes that “(...) pretrial detention cannot be replaced with any other measure in the following crimes: homicide, aggravated homicide (…). 88 The relevant part of Article 8 of the American Convention reads as follows: 2. 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. During the proceedings, every person is entitled, with full equality, to the following minimum guarantees: c. adequate time and means for the preparation of his defense; e. the inalienable right to be assisted by counsel provided by the state, paid or not as the domestic law provides, if the accused does not defend himself personally or engage his own counsel within the time period established by law; h. the right to appeal the judgment to a higher court. 89 Article 25(1) establishes that “Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties.” 84 18