accused cannot be based on general or specific preventive objectives that can be attributed to punishment, but can only be based on one legitimate goal: to ensure that the accused will not 267 At the same time, prevent the implementation of the proceeding or evade the action of justice. the personal characteristics of the supposed perpetrator and the seriousness of the offense he or 268 The she is accused of are not, in themselves, sufficient justification for the preventive detention. procedural risk cannot be presumed, but must be verified in each case, based on the real and 269 Thus, in order to respect the presumption of objective circumstances of the specific case. innocence when ordering measures that restrict liberty, in each specific case, the State must justify and authenticate, clearly and with reasons, the existence of the requirements contained in the 270 If the State proceeds otherwise, it would equate anticipating the punishment, which Convention. contravenes widely-known general principles of law, including the principle of the presumption of 271 innocence. 160. In the instant case, on April 28, 1992, the Tenth Investigating Court of Lima issue an arrest 272 The decision related to 96 persons, including Ms. J., against whom an warrant against Ms. J. investigation was opened “for an offense against public peace (Terrorism) against the Peruvian 273 The reasoning of the decision was that “the facts […] State” and an arrest warrant was issued. that ha[d] been individualized to the presumed perpetrators were defined as offenses and penalized in articles [319 and 320] of the Criminal Code in force, and that criminal proceedings were not subject to the statute of limitations.” The Court also indicated that the coercive measure was issued in “application of article [135] of the Code of Criminal Procedure, […] which establishes detention whenever the penalty to be imposed would be more than four years and there are sufficient probative elements of the perpetration of the wrongful act that connect the accused as the 274 perpetrators […] and in application of article [77] of the Code of Criminal Procedures.” 267 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 103, and Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela, supra, para. 111. 268 Cf. Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras, supra, para. 69 and Case of Bayarri v. Argentina, supra, para. 74 269 Cf. Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela, supra, para. 115. 270 Cf. Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile, supra, para. 198, and Case of Servellón García et al. v. Honduras. Judgment of September 21, 2006. Series C No. 152, para. 90. 271 Cf. Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela, supra, para. 144. 272 Cf. Decision of April 28, 1992, of the Tenth Investigating Court of Lima (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 37, folios 3687 to 3689). 273 Cf. Decision of April 28, 1992, of the Tenth Investigating Court of Lima (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 37, folios 3687 to 3689). 274 Decision of April 28, 1992, of the Tenth Investigating Court of Lima (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 37, folios 3687 and 3688). The said article 135 in force at the date of the arrest warrant established that: “[t]he judge may issue an arrest warrant if, based on the initial evidence submitted by the Provincial Prosecutor, it is possible to determine: 1. That there is sufficient evidence of the perpetration of an offense implicating the accused as perpetrator or participant in it. 2. That the penalty to be imposed is more than four years’ imprisonment, and 3. That the accused, owing to his record or circumstances, may try to evade the action of justice or obstruct the probative actions.” 1991 Code of Criminal Procedure. Legislative Decree No. 638 of April 27, 1991 (merits report, folio 2641). Also, article 77 of the Code of Criminal Procedures in force at the time established: “[o]n receiving the complaint, the investigating judge shall only open the preliminary investigation if he considers that the act denounced constitutes an offense, that the presumed perpetrator has been individualized, and that that the criminal action is not subject to the statute of limitations. The decision shall include the precise reasons and grounds, and shall indicate the specific classification of the offense or offenses with which the accused is charged and the order that he or she must appear before the court to provide a preliminary statement. In the case of offenses prosecuted by privately instituted proceedings, the judge when classifying the complaint may, ex officio, take preliminary measures within the first 10 days of receiving it. If he considers that the action is not in order, he shall issue a decision of INADMISSIBLE. In addition, he shall return the complaint if he considers that any procedural elements expressly indicated by law has been omitted. An appeal may be made against these decisions. The court shall decide the appeal within three days of receiving the prosecutor’s report, which must be issued within the same time frame. In all cases, the judge must rule within no more than 15 days of receiving the complaint.” 1941 Code of Criminal Procedures (file of annexes to the State’s brief of August 14, 2013, folio 5092) 51