other accused, when there is a risk that the accused may escape or commit another offense.” It indicated that “observing these formalities, on April 28, 1992, the Tenth Investigating Court of Lima issued an arrest warrant on observing sufficient probative elements that implicated Ms. J. as the presumed perpetrator of the crime of terrorism; in other words, it reasoned its decision. In addition, the State indicated that article 13(a) of Decree-Law No. 25,475 was not applied to Ms. J., because it was not in force at the time of her detention. A.4.2) Considerations of the Court 156. Based on the arguments submitted by the parties, the Court will analyze the order of preventive detention and the application of article 13(a) of Decree-Law No. 25,475 to the case of Ms. J. i. The order of preventive detention 157. The reiterated case law of this Court indicates that the general rule should be the liberty of 261 because the latter enjoys the accused while a decision is taken on their criminal responsibility, the legal status of innocence, which signifies that he or she must be treated by the State in a manner that accords with their condition of a person who has not been convicted. In exceptional cases, the State may use preventive detention in order to avoid situations that jeopardize achieving the objectives of the proceeding; in other words, to ensure that the accused does not impede the 262 Thus, the effective implementation of the investigations or evade the action of justice. preventive detention of an accused may be ordered only exceptionally and when, for example, there 263 are no other guarantees that ensure his or her appearance before the court. 158. In this regard, the Inter-American Court has repeatedly indicated that, for a measure that deprives an individual of his liberty to be in keeping with the guarantees established in the Convention, its application must be exceptional and respect the principle of the presumption of innocence and the principles of legality, necessity and proportionality, essential in a democratic 264 Any restriction of liberty that is not based on sufficient grounds that permit an society. evaluation of whether it is in keeping with the said conditions will be arbitrary and, therefore, 265 violate Article 7(3) of the Convention. 159. This Court has also indicated that, in order to restrict the measures such as preventive detention, there must be sufficient reasonably supposed that the person subject to the proceeding has 266 However, even if this point has been verified, the investigated. right to personal liberty by evidence allowing it to be taken part in the illegal act deprivation of liberty of the 261 Among others, Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 106; Case of Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, para. 74; Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile, supra, para. 196; Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras, supra, para. 67, and Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206, para. 67. 262 Cf. Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Merits, supra, para. 77, and Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela, supra, para. 67, para. 111. 263 Cf. Case of Tibi v. Ecuador, supra, para. 106, and Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Series C No. 207, para. 144. 264 Cf. Case of the “Children’s Rehabilitation Institute" v. Paraguay. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 228; Case of Torres Millacura et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 71. 265 Cf. Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Peru, supra, para. 128, and Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2010. Series C No. 218, para. 166. 266 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 101, and Case of Pacheco Teruel et al. v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2012. Series C No. 241, para. 106. 50