region,115 and of Argentina,116 as well as the practice of international courts,117 it is an additional presumption to the other requirements of a legitimate purpose, appropriateness, necessity and proportionality and operates as a supplementary guarantee when ordering a precautionary measure that restricts liberty. 95. The foregoing should be understood by considering that, in principle and in general terms, this decision should not have any effect on the person who decides the responsibility the accused, since it is usually made by a judge or by a judicial authority other than that which decides on the merits.118 96. Moreover, the Court has held that a suspicion or sufficient evidence that permits a reasonable presumption that the person subjected to trial has participated in the unlawful act under investigation must be substantiated and expressed on specific acts; in other words, not on mere conjectures or abstract intuitions. Thus, the State “must not arrest someone in order to then investigate him; rather, it is only authorized to deprive a person of his liberty when there is sufficient information to be able to bring him to trial.”119 In the same regard, the European Court has held that the term “suspicion or reasonable indicia” presupposes the existence of “some facts or information which would satisfy an objective observer that the person concerned may have committed the offence in question.”120 ii. Test of proportionality 97. Regarding the second point, the Court has held that the judicial authority must consider proportionality when ordering a measure that deprives liberty. The Court has held pre-trial detention to be a precautionary and not a punitive measure121 that should be applied For example: Article 233 of the New Code of Criminal Procedure of Bolivia; Article 312 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Brazil; Article 140 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Chile; Article 308 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Colombia; Article 291 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Costa Rica; Article 534 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ecuador; Articles 329 and 330 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of El Salvador; Article 154 of the National Code of Criminal Procedure of Mexico; Article 259 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Guatemala; Article 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Dominican Republic; Articles 168 and 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Nicaragua; Article 222 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Panama; Article 242 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Paraguay; Article 268 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Peru; Article 224(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Uruguay and Article 236 of the Organic Code of Venezuela . 115 For example: Article 220 of the Federal Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Argentina; Article 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Province of Buenos Aires; Article 292 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Province of Catamarca; Article 280 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Province of Chaco; Article 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Province of Chubut; Article 281 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Province of Córdoba; Articles 318 and 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Province of Jujuy; Articles 250, 252 and 253 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Province of La Pampa; Article 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Province of Mendoza, Article 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Province of Salta; Article 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Province of Santa Fe; Articles 178 and 194 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Province of Santiago del Estero and Article 284 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Province of Tucumán. 116 For example: Article 58(1) of the Statute of the International Criminal Court; Rule 40 Bis of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the Special Court for Sierra Leona; Rule 63 (b) (iii) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the Special Court for Lebanon; Rule 40 Bis of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Criminal Court for the Former Yugoslavia; Rule 40 Bis of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Criminal Court for Ruanda and Rule 63 of the Internal Rules of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia. 117 Mutatis mutandis, Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 174. 118 Cf. Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, Members and Activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 29, 2014. Series C No. 279, para. 311 and Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, para. 103. 119 Cf. ECHR. Case of S., V. and A. v. Denmark, Judgment of October 22, 2018, Application N° 35553/12, 36678/12 y 36711/12, para. 91 and Case of Petkov and Profirov v. Bulgaria, Judgment of June 24, 2014, Application N° 50027/08 and 50781/09, paras. 43 and 46. 120 Cf. Case of Pollo Rivera et al. v. Peru, para. 122 and Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 69. 121 19