because it was based merely on “confidential testimony,” without including elements that could corroborate this conclusion (supra para. 328). This testimony relates to statements whose contents could not be examined by the defense, because at the stage of the investigation at which the pre-trial detention was requested and ordered, the secrecy of the investigation proceedings had been decreed for 40 days pursuant to article 182 of the Criminal Procedural Code. Moreover, when the judge evaluated the request for pre-trial detention filed by the Public Prosecution Service during the hearing, the defense pointed out that information was being used “which he ha[d] been unable to access.” 335. This reference to “confidential testimony” was not accompanied by additional arguments or explanations that, without revealing information that had to be temporarily kept confidential with regard to a probative element, would have provided more information allowing the justification for the judicial decision to be known and enabling the accused and their defense to contest the adoption of the precautionary measure of pre-trial detention. Consequently, the defense of the accused had no knowledge of the evidence and no information concerning the elements that this supposedly gave the judge for basing her considerations regarding possible participation in the criminal act. 336. Regarding Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia, the judicial decision to adopt the measure of pre-trial detention (supra para. 329) provided sufficient evidence to conclude that it complied with the first requirement to indicate the evidence that resulted in a reasonable presumption that the person had taken part in the wrongful act investigated. b) Lack of a legitimate purpose 337. With regard to the requirement that the need for pre-trial detention must be justified by a legitimate purpose (supra para. 312.a), the decisions ordering the pre-trial detention were not in keeping with the American Convention: a) The decision with regard to Jaime Marileo Saravia, José Benicio Huenchunao Mariñán, Juan Ciriaco Millacheo Licán and Patricia Troncoso Robles did not refer to whether the precautionary measure sought some procedural objective and was necessary in relation to the investigation, but merely ordered it on the basis that the accused were subject to this type of measure in relation to other proceedings. This reasoning does not substantiate the need for the measure in relation to the investigation and prosecution in the specific case. b) The grounds for the decision with regard to Juan Patricio Marileo was that his release would represent a “danger to the security of society,” an open-ended reason that, as already indicated (supra paras. 322 and 323), makes it essential to verify whether, in the specific case, the reference to these grounds was accompanied by a factor or criterion that could be considered to seek a precautionary objective and that would justify the measure, in the specific case. In this regard, the decision that ordered pre-trial detention merely indicated that it was considered necessary “during [the actual] procedural stage” of the case “based on the manner and circumstances of the perpetration of the wrongful act investigated, the importance of the harm caused by this, and the punishment it entailed.” With regard to the criterion or factor relating to “the manner [and] circumstances of the perpetration of the wrongful act investigated,” the Court notes that this factor was not accompanied by an explanation about how it might entail a procedural risk. The judge did not justify whether it would have any effects on the obstruction of specific measures that were pending at that stage of the proceedings. Regarding the reference to criteria such as the punishment and the “harm caused by the offense,” the Court reiterates that the seriousness of the offense is not, in itself, sufficient justification for pre-trial detention (supra para. 312.a). Consequently, the Court finds that the domestic court did not justify the need to order pre-trial detention based on a procedural risk in the specific case. 117