which imply a lesser degree of interference with individual rights, are not sufficient to satisfy the procedural objectives of the case. 197 161. Likewise, the Court has held that alternative measures should be available and that measures that restrict liberty may only be imposed when it is not possible to use other measures to guarantee a defendant’s appearance at trial. 198 In the Universal System for the Protection of Human Rights, the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-Custodial Measures refer to pretrial detention as a last resort and clarify that “pre-trial detention shall be used as a means of last resort in criminal proceedings, with due regard for the investigation of the alleged offence and for the protection of society and the victim.” The Rules add that “alternative measures to pre-trial detention shall be employed at as early a stage as possible.” 199 In a recent case, the European Court of Human Rights held that pretrial detention is a serious interference with fundamental rights and is only justified when the courts have considered and deemed insufficient other less harmful measures. 200 162. Similarly, the Inter-American Court has held that, in cases of deprivation of liberty, Article 7(5) imposes limits on its duration and, therefore, when the period of pretrial detention exceeds a reasonable time, the liberty of the accused must be restricted by other less harmful measures that would assure his appearance at trial. The standards that should be borne in mind to determine the reasonableness of the time must be closely related to the specific circumstances of the case. In view of the above, and in accordance with Articles 7(3), 7(5) and 8(2) (principle of the presumption of innocence), the Court considers that the domestic authorities must tend toward the imposition of alternative measures to pretrial detention, so as not to distort its exceptional nature. 201 On this point, it should be recalled that the Principles and Best Practices on the Protection of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas (III) establish that: a) the deprivation of liberty of persons shall be applied for the minimum time necessary; b) the rule is the freedom of the accused and the exception is pretrial detention; c) in certain cases, when it is prolonged excessively, the requirements that are considered normal or sufficient to justify it become insufficient and a greater argumentative effort is required, and d) it must be substantiated and justified in the specific case. 163. The Court has also considered that any restriction of liberty that lacks sufficient justification (Article 8(1)) to allow an assessment of whether it meets the aforementioned conditions would be arbitrary and, therefore, would violate Article 7(3) of the Convention. Thus, in order to respect the presumption of innocence (Article 8(2)) when ordering precautionary measures that restrict liberty, the State must provide a clear and reasoned justification and evidence, according to each specific case, of the existence of the requirements established in the Convention. 202 197 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 93; Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 356, and Case of Tzompaxtle Tecpile et al. v. Mexico, supra, para. 110. 198 Cf. Case of Romero Feris v. Argentina, supra, para. 107, and Case of Tzompaxtle Tecpile et al. v. Mexico, supra, para. 111. 199 United Nations General Assembly, United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures (Tokyo Rules), Resolution 45/110, December 14, 1990, Rules 6(1) and 6(2), and Case of Romero Feris v. Argentina, supra, para. 108. See also, Case of Tzompaxtle Tecpile et al. v. Mexico, supra, para. 110. 200 Cf. ECHR. Case of Selahattin Demirtas v. Turkey. Judgment of December 22, 2020, Application No. 14305/17, para. 347. Cf. Case of Bayarri v. Argentina. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 30, 2008. Series C No. 187 para. 70; Case of Romero Feris v. Argentina, supra, para. 109, and Case of Tzompaxtle Tecpile et al. v. Mexico, supra, para. 112. 201 202 Cf. Case of Argüelles et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 288 para. 120; Case of Women Victims of Sexual Torture in Atenco v. Mexico, supra, -43-