301. CEJIL alleged that the violation of the right to liberty occurred owing to the arbitrary nature of the arrest and pre-trial detention ordered against Víctor Ancalaf Llaupe, and affirmed that this resulted in a violation of the principle of the presumption of innocence and the violation of the right to be tried within a reasonable time or be released. It stated that “the arrest and pre-trial detention ordered against Víctor Ancalaf Llaupe suffered from two fundamental irregularities: (i) no reasons were given for the measure ordered, and (ii) the pretrial detention did not respond to procedural purposes.” It argued that his arrest was ordered “without justifying a legitimate purpose, and without identifying the evidence that warranted the adoption of such a restrictive measure as the deprivation of liberty of someone who has been indicted.” It also argued that the indictment “was supported by evidence produced during secret preliminary proceedings, in violation of the adversarial principle.” CEJIL argued that the indictment of Mr. Ancalaf and the denials of the requests for pre-trial release were based solely on the grounds of “danger to the security of society,” which implied “an absolute legal presumption of dangerousness” that “violates the American Convention, making the measure arbitrary” and that, since it is a “non-procedural criterion,” it “violated the principle of the innocence of Mr. Ancalaf and turned the pre-trial detention ordered against him into an arbitrary measure.” It indicated that the pre-trial detention was “an automatic consequence of the indictment,” reflecting “the particularity of the inquisitorial system where the notions of proceedings and punishment are not clearly separated.” In addition, it argued that “the proceedings under the Counter-terrorism Act convert the ordering and implementing of pre-trial detention into the general rule,” “a practice [that] violates the guarantee of presumption of innocence.” CEJIL alleged that Article 2 of the Convention had been violated in relation to the regulation of the grounds of “danger to the security of society.” 302. The State did not refer specifically to the pre-trial detention of the presumed victims, but referred in general terms to the domestic law in force that regulates pre-trial detention and its application in Chile. It indicated that this precautionary measure “does not infringe the principle of the presumption of innocence, in view of its exceptional and preventive nature, constituting, also, an essential measure to safeguard the security of the investigation, of the victim, and of society, in certain cases.” It asserted that “the judge is not obliged to order pre-trial detention, even in the case of serious offenses with severe punishments,” “including terrorist offenses,” and that the “high standard of evidence that must be presented to the court in order to warrant pre-trial detention is a sufficient argument to reject the allegations that have been made with regard to this precautionary measure.” It affirmed that “the Counter-terrorism Act does not contain any special norm that permits ordering pre-trial detention.” It referred to the grounds for pre-trial detention relating to the “danger to the security of society or of the victim” (infra para. 359). B) Domestic legal framework 303. Constitution. Article 19.7 subparagraphs (e) and (f), of the Constitution of the Republic of Chile establishes: e) Pre-trial release shall be in order unless the judge considers that pre-trial detention or custody is necessary for the preliminary investigations or for the safety of the victim or of society. The law shall establish the requirements and methods to obtain it. The decision granting pre-trial release to those accused of the offenses referred to in article 9 shall always be consulted with a higher authority. This and the appeal against the decision issued on the release shall be heard by the competent higher court composed exclusively of full-time members. The decision that approves or grants the release must be taken unanimously. While the pre-trial release lasts, the accused shall always be subject to supervisory measures by the legally-established authority; f) In criminal cases the accused cannot be obliged to testify under oath with regard to an act that he has committed; nor can his relatives in the ascending or descending lines, his spouse and other persons who, according to the case and circumstances, are indicated by law, be obliged to testify against him. 104