appropriateness, necessity or proportionality. To the contrary, the laws established mandatory detention for certain types of crime and allowed the judge to take into account factors that were external to the person accused, such as the public alarm that the perpetration of the crime may have caused, or the frequency with which similar acts were committed. These considerations are based on general preventive or special preventive purposes, which could be attributed to the punishment, and this Court has considered that they do not constitute valid grounds for pretrial detention.207 110. Therefore, the Court concludes that the order of pretrial detention issued against Manuela and its continuation following review was arbitrary in violation of Articles 7(1) and 7(3) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention, because the order was issued without a statement of reasons that explained the need for it, and it was substantiated by provisions that were contrary to the Convention establishing the admissibility of automatic pretrial detention, as indicated (supra para. 104). 111. Additionally, the Court has pointed out that an order for arbitrary pretrial detention may result in a violation of the presumption of innocence (supra para. 101). The principle of presumption of innocence is established in Article 8(2) of the American Convention. This Court has established that, in order to respect the presumption of innocence, when ordering measures that restrict liberty, in each specific case the State must substantiate and prove, clearly and with reasons, the existence of the aforementioned requirements stipulated by the Convention (supra para. 101). 112. Taking into account that the order of pretrial detention against the presumed victim was arbitrary because it did not contain a reasoned and objective legal justification for its admissibility, and also its duration of more than five months without its pertinence having been duly reviewed by the judicial authorities, the Court declares that El Salvador violated Manuela’s right to the presumption of innocence established in Article 8(2) of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument. VIII-2 RIGHTS TO JUDICIAL GUARANTEES,208 PERSONAL INTEGRITY209 AND EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW,210 IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATIONS TO RESPECT RIGHTS WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION211 AND TO ADOPT DOMESTIC LEGAL PROVISIONS212 A. Arguments of the parties and the Commission 113. First, the Commission argued that “the manifest omissions of her defense counsel meant that Manuela did not have access to the judicial remedies available to challenge the human rights violations that took place during the initial investigative steps or to challenge the guilty verdict.” Specifically, the Commission pointed out the following alleged flaws: (i) the presumed victim did not have a defense counsel during the initial procedures conducted on February 28 and 29, 2008; (ii) there is no record that the presumed victim was notified of the appointment of her defense counsel on February 28, 2008; (iii) the defense counsel presented minimum evidence, merely offering the testimony of Manuela’s mother, and (iv) Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, supra, para. 103, and Case of Villarroel Merino et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 83. 207 208 Article 8 of the Convention. 209 Article 5 of the Convention. 210 Article 24 of the Convention. 211 Article 1(1) of the Convention. 212 Article 2 of the Convention. 35