B.2. Considerations of the Court 87. The Commission and the representative referred to the alleged arbitrariness of the decision of August 1, 2001 (supra para. 22), which extended the pre-trial detention of the alleged victim. The Commission did not present arguments on the initial order of the precautionary measure. The representative argued that the decision of August 2, 1999, which ordered the detention of the alleged victim, was not substantiated (supra para. 21). 88. The Court first notes that the decision of August 2 is not that which ordered the pretrial detention of the alleged victim. In effect, the Second Examining Magistrate, in that decision, ordered his detention pursuant to the provisions of Article 284 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Province of Corrientes (hereinafter “the CPP”). This provision refers to the citation of an accused person to appear before a judge and indicates that in cases that have a sanction of deprivation of liberty or the possibility of a conditional sentence, such citation should be given effect by detaining the accused.107 89. However, Articles 308 et seq. of the CPP refer to pre-trial detention and specifically state that the “judge shall order the pre-trial detention of the accused when deciding that the accused be prosecuted.” Such was done in this case by Resolution N° 1321 of October 7, 1999 (supra para. 21).108 Therefore, the arguments of the representative do not refer to the order of pre-trial detention, but rather to the order to appear before a judge. The Court only has extracts of the order of pre-trial detention, which was submitted together with the State’s final written arguments (supra para. 10). In addition, the representative stated on various opportunities that he opposed the incorporation of these documents into the record of the case (supra para. 14). 90. The Court will now analyze the arguments of the representative and of the Commission on the alleged arbitrariness of the decision to extend the pre-trial detention and will not rule on the initial decision since the arguments presented by the representative do not refer to that point and the documentary evidence that was submitted to the Court is not complete (supra para. 14). a) Regarding the pre-trial detention and the presumption of innocence 91. With respect to arbitrariness, referred to in Article 7(3) of the Convention, the Court has established that “no person may be subjected to detention or imprisonment for reasons or by methods that, although classified as legal, could be deemed as incompatible with respect for the fundamental rights of the individual because, among others, they are unreasonable, unforeseeable or lacking in proportionality.”109 The Court has held that the domestic law, the appropriate procedure and the relevant express or implicit general principles, in themselves, must be compatible with the Convention. Thus, the concept of “arbitrariness” is not to be Code of Criminal Procedure of the Province of Corrientes, Article 284: Citation – Whenever there is a justification to receive the statement of the accused, his appearance shall be ordered by a simple citation – except in cases of en flagrante- as long as the offense attributed to him does not call for pre-trial detention or a conditional sentence seems appropriate. The detention of the accused shall, however, be ordered whenever there is any reason to presume that he will not comply with the order or will attempt to destroy evidence of the event or will collude with his accomplices or will induce false statements. The same procedure may be used when investigating an offense that would allow the release of the accused. If the person cited does not appear within the set time limit without justifying a legitimate cause, his detention shall be ordered. 107 The decision to extend the pre-trial detention of Mr. Romero Feris is mentioned at the beginning of that document. Cf. First Examining Magistrate, Resolution N° 1251 of August 1, 2001 (evidence file, f. 190). The State submitted with its final written arguments extracts of the indictment of Mr. Romero Feris. Cf. Resolution No. 1321 of the Second Court of Instruction of October 7, 1999 (evidence file, fs. 345 and 346). 108 Cf. Case of Gangaram Panday v. Suriname. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 21, 1994. Series C No. 16, para. 47 and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica, para. 355. 109 17