sought. Pretrial detention must be used on an exceptional basis and must be duly justified, not resting solely on the seriousness of the alleged crime or on personal characteristics of the alleged perpetrator. If the above conditions are not met—and this shall be reassessed periodically—the pretrial detention will become arbitrary and the sentence will be anticipated, which violates the presumption of innocence guaranteed by Article 8(2) of the Convention. 114 In addition, Article 2 of the Convention requires that States adapt their domestic laws to ensure that preventive deprivations of liberty, when carried out, meet the parameters indicated. 115 136. On January 28, 2000, the Third Criminal Court of Pichincha ordered the pretrial detention of Mr. Cortez on the basis of Article 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (supra para. 61). The State argued that the pretrial detention was also ordered in accordance with Article 170 of the same code (supra para. 112). 137. Article 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (supra para. 41) authorized pretrial detention when there was (a) circumstantial evidence of the existence of a crime meriting deprivation of liberty and (b) circumstantial evidence that “the defendant is the perpetrator or accomplice of the crime.” The Court has previously found Article 177 to be incompatible with the Convention because that domestic provision allowed for the preventive deprivation of liberty without valid procedural purposes. 116 138. According to the cited provision, the judicial decision that ordered the pretrial detention of Mr. Cortez did not have a legitimate purpose as the Convention requires, because it did not specify reasons related to the need to prevent the obstruction of proceedings or the evasion of justice, which are the legitimate procedural purposes of that precautionary measure (supra para. 135). 139. Thus, the pretrial detention of Mr. Cortez on the basis of the decision in the ordinary courts was an arbitrary deprivation of his liberty. It also violated the principle of the presumption of innocence. These rights violations were connected to a failure of the State to adopt domestic legal provisions. B.3 Remedies for Mr. Cortez’s deprivations of liberty 140. The Commission and the representatives argued that the State violated Mr. Cortez’s right to suitable and effective legal remedies to safeguard his right to personal liberty, with respect to the three deprivations of his liberty (supra paras. 113 and 114). The Court finds it appropriate to analyze this question based on Article 7(6) of the American Convention, which is the specific provision that concerns the judicial protection of personal liberty. The legal recourse mandated by Article 7(6) is a specific type of the protection established in Article 25 of the Convention, and it has its own legal status. Thus, bearing in mind the principle 114 Cf. Cf. Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Merits. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 77; Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs, supra, paras. 92 and 117; Case of Bayarri v Argentina. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of October 30, 2008. Series C No. 187, para. 74; Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Series C No. 207, para. 144; Case of Villarroel Merino et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of August 24, 2021. Series C No. 430, paras. 87–93; and Case of Manuela et al. v. El Salvador, supra, paras. 99–101. 115 Cf. Case of Hilaire, Constantine, and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, para. 113, and Case of Manuela et al. v. El Salvador, supra, para. 108– 112. 116 Cf. Case of Herrera Espinoza et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2016. Series C No. 316, paras. 148 and 150–153, and Case of Carranza Alarcón v. Ecuador, supra, paras. 79–81. 30