114. Secondly, as regards the basis for his preventive detention, the Commission does not have in the file the initial order establishing this precautionary measure and it is therefore not possible to comment on whether or not such a statement of reasons is in accordance with the American Convention. However, the IACHR does have the reasoning in the Instructing Magistrate No.1’s decision of August 1, 2001, which decided to extend Mr. Romero Feris’ preventive detention. This order indicates that the preventive detention ought to be maintained and extended taking into account that Mr. Romero Feris might receive a sentence of up to 25 years. Two other reasons are also given: (i) the imminence of the trials; and (ii) Mr. Romero Feris' statements on the lack of independence and impartiality of the judicial authorities. Based on these elements, the Instructing Magistrate No. 1 presumed the danger of "a flight risk". 115. It is clear from the standards described above that preventive detention can only be based on procedural purposes such as a flight risk or the obstruction of court proceedings; and that such purposes must be established individually in the light of the specific circumstances of the accused person. In addition, the organs of the System have clearly indicated that any potential sentence cannot be an element in determining the flight risk, as this is contrary to the presumption of innocence. 116. On the other hand, the IACHR finds that the other two considerations made by the judge refer to elements of the criminal proceedings themselves. The IACHR considers that the holding of public hearings or trials, which are stages of any proceedings, cannot justify preventive detention because, in practice, such a precautionary measure would constitute the rule and not the exception. Likewise, filing appeals in order to question the independence or impartiality of the judicial authorities in charge of assessing the facts, is a right of all persons subject to criminal proceedings. The filing of appeals in the context of a criminal proceeding must not in any way adversely prejudice the accused or be a justification for maintaining preventive detention. Consequently, the maintenance and extension of Mr. Romero Feris’ preventive detention was arbitrary and in violation of the principle of the presumption of innocence. Furthermore, since it was based on grounds incompatible with the American Convention, the decision of August 1, 2001, in which Mr. Romero Feris' request for release was considered, did not constitute an effective remedy to challenge deprivation of liberty. 117. In light of the foregoing considerations, the Commission concludes that the State violated the rights to personal liberty and to the principle of presumption of innocence established in Articles 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.5, 7.6 and 8.2 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1.1 of the same instrument, to the detriment of Raúl Rolando Romero Feris. B. Rights to Judicial Guarantees and Judicial Protection in connection with the criminal proceedings against Mr. Romero Feris (Articles 8.1201 and 25.1202 of the Convention) 1. General Observations on the right to be tried by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal 118. Article 8.1 of the Convention enshrines the right to be tried by "a competent tribunal (...) established by law.” In this way, individuals "have the right to be tried by ordinary courts of law according to legally established procedures".203 The State must not create courts that fail to apply duly established 201 Article 8.1 of the American Convention establishes, so far as is relevant: 1. Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature. 202 Article 25 of the American Convention establishes, so far as is relevant: 1. 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 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. 203 I/A Court H.R., Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206, para. 75. 28