implemented that are conducive to the effective observance of the rights and freedoms embodied in the Convention. Consequently, the existence of a norm does not, in itself, guarantee that its implementation will be sufficient. Rather, the application of the norms or their interpretation, as jurisdictional practices and an expression of the public order of the State, must be adapted to the purpose pursued by Article 2 of the Convention. In other words, the Court emphasizes that the judges and other entities involved in the administration of justice must ex officio monitor that domestic norms are consistent with the American Convention, evidently within the framework of their respective competences and the corresponding procedural regulations. In this task, they must take into account not only the respective international treaty, but also the interpretation of it made by the Inter-American Court, ultimate interpreter of the American Convention.18 21. It is necessary to ensure the most rigorous diligence in the safeguard of Convention-based guarantees in the domestic sphere. Thus, the Court recalls its questioning of the circumstances of isolation and secrecy in which the proceedings concerned took place, violating the right to the public nature of the proceedings.19 In this way, the Court reiterated that the right to a public hearing in criminal proceedings, except when “necessary to preserve the interests of justice,” was an essential element of the accusatory criminal procedural system of democratic States,20 “whose function is to prohibit the administration of justice in secret [and] to submit it to the scrutiny of the parties and the public [in order to ensure] the transparency and impartiality of the decisions that are taken,”21 promoting confidence in the courts of justice. 22. In addition, the Court reiterates what it has stated on other occasions, to the effect that “[a]ny person detained or retained shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power [...].”22 Indeed, this Court has established that, since preventive detention is a precautionary rather than a punitive measure, the State has an obligation not to restrict the liberty of a person detained beyond limits that are strictly necessary to ensure that he or she will not impede the development of the proceedings or elude the hand of justice.23 Previously, the Court’s case law has rejected criteria of a danger to society as a justification to restrict the rights of the individual, particularly the right to due process. 24 18 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. V. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 124; Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores V. México. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220, para. 225, and Case of Gelman V. Uruguay. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of February 24, 2011. Series C No. 222, para. 193. 19 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al., supra note 11, paras. 172 and 173; Case of Cantoral Benavides V. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, paras. 146 and 147, and Case of Lori Berenson Mejía, supra note 12, para. 198. 20 Cf. Case of Lori Berenson Mejía, supra note 12, paras. 198 to 200 and Case of Palamara Iribarne V. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, para. 167. 21 Cf. Case of Palamara Iribane, supra note 20, para. 168. 22 Cf. Case of Bulacio V. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 129; Case of Bayarri V. Argentina. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 30, 2008. Series C No. 187, para. 63, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores, supra note 18, para. 93. 23 Cf. Case of Suárez Rosero V. Ecuador. Merits. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 77; Case of Barreto Leiva V. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206, para. 121, and Case of Usón Ramírez V. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits and Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Series C No. 207, para. 144. 24 Cf. Case of Fermín Ramírez V. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 20, 2005. Series C No. 126, paras. 92 to 98. 7