101 completion of specific, defined steps of the investigation or where the release of the detainee or prisoner represents a danger to society or to the victim. 204. It is a proven fact in the instant case that the military prosecutors ordered the precautionary measure of preventive detention against Mr. Palamara-Iribarne and that he was repeatedly deprived of his liberty, both during the processing of Case No. 471, instituted against him for the crime of contempt, and the processing of Case No. 464, in which he was prosecuted for the crime of disobedience and breach of military duties (supra para. 63(21), 63(22), 63(27)(d) and (e), 63(28), 63(29), 63(56)(c), 63(80) and 63(83). 205. As to Case No. 471, concerning the crime of contempt, it is a proven fact that, on July 12, 1993, the Naval Prosecutor of Magallanes issued a writ of indictment against Mr. Palamara-Iribarne, ordering his preventive detention at Garrison IM “Orden y Seguridad” (“Order and Security”) without providing any further legal grounds other than Article 274 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which article makes no reference to the conditions that need to be met in order for preventive detention to apply, but instead defines the conditions to be met for a writ of indictment (supra para. 63(80)). 206. Taking due account of the presumption of innocence, it is the Court’s view that the requirements to be met in issuing a writ of indictment are different from those that apply in ordering preventive detention as, in the latter case, in addition to the reasonable attributability of the criminal conduct to the defendant, detention must also be necessary to prevent the accused from hindering the development of the proceeding (supra para. 198). 207. In the order of preventive detention of July 12, 1993, the Prosecutor made no reference whatsoever to the requirements defined by Chile’s domestic laws for the deprivation of Mr. Palamara-Iribarne’s liberty to apply, and provided no evidence pointing to the hindering of the investigation by the accused. The Prosecutor based the order of preventive detention only on the elements required to be met for the issue of a writ of indictment and, therefore, Mr. Palamara-Iribarne remained in detention for four days, from July 12 through July 15, 1993 (supra para. 63(83)). He was released as a result of the ruling handed down by the Court-Martial (supra para. 63(82)). 208. As to Case No. 464, it has been proven that, on March 15, 1993, the Deputy Naval Prosecutor of Magallanes issued a writ of indictment against Mr. PalamaraIribarne ordering his preventive detention and denying his release on bail, on the grounds that there were “proceedings pending execution” that “require[d] that defendant be held in custody” (supra para. 63(27)(d) and (e)). Even though Mr. Palamara-Iribarne requested that the Deputy Naval Prosecutor of Magallanes granted his release on bail, setting the amount of such bail, and claimed, inter alia, that “[his] arrest [was] unnecessary for the ongoing investigation and […] [he] [would] not flee or hide [from prosecution],” the Deputy Naval Prosecutor “denied” the request “under the provisions of Art[icles] 361(1) and 363(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,” as “the certificate of existence and criminal record was not attached to the case file” (supra paras. 63(28) and 63(29)).