solely on the requirement established in the first section of Article 233 of the Code of Criminal Procedure269, though this article also required concurrence of the requirements established in paragraph 2 of the same article, and was carried out “without entering into further legal considerations,” considering that criminal proceedings had been instituted against Ms. Andrade Salmón by Resolution No. 215/2000, as her conduct was criminalized in Articles 335 (fraud [estafa]) and 132 (criminal association [asociación delictuosa]) of the Criminal Code. Along those lines, the Commission notes that the pre-trial detention order issued November 14, 2000 by the Seventh Criminal Examining Judge in the Gader case (after annulling the proceeding up to the initial order of investigation) omitted any type of foundation, noting “as it is so ordered by my Authority by Order of Act of Public Hearing for considering precautionary measures.” 216. According to Article 233 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: Once formal charges have been brought, the judge may order the accused’s pre-trial detention, upon a well-reasoned request from the prosecutor or from the victim, whether or not the latter is a plaintiff, provided the following conditions are present: 1. The existence of sufficient information to argue that the accused likely committed or aided and abetted in the commission of a punishable offense. 2. The existence of sufficient information indicating that the accused will be a flight risk or obstruct the inquiry into the facts.270 217. In relation to the second requirement established at Article 233 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that is, weighing the existence of a danger of flight or obstruction of justice, the Commission notes that Articles 234 and 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure establish the elements that the judge should consider when determining their existence in the specific case: Article 234 - (Flight Risk). Flight risk shall be understood as any circumstance that allows one to reasonably infer that the accused will not stand trial but instead seek to evade justice. To determine whether a person accused of a crime poses a flight risk, the following factors shall be taken into special consideration: 1. The accused does not have his or her habitual domicile or residence, business or job in the country; 2. The accused has the means to leave the country or remain in hiding; 3. Evidence that the accused is making preparations to escape; 4. The accused’s behavior during the proceedings or in a previous proceeding, to the extent that said behavior suggests the accused’s determination not to stand trial; 5. The attitude that the accused voluntarily adopts with respect to the importance of the recoverable damages; 6. The fact that the person in question has been charged with the commission of another intentional criminal offense or has been sentenced to incarceration in a lower court ruling; 7. The fact that the person in question has been given an alternative outlet for an intentional criminal offense; 8. The fact that the accused is a repeat offender; 9. The fact that the accused is a member of criminal conspiracies or organized crime groups; 10. The accused poses a real danger to society or to the victim or to the plaintiff; and 11. Any other duly accredited circumstance that would give the court cause to reasonably believe that the accused is a flight risk. 269 Code of Criminal Procedure adopted by Law 1970 of March 25, 1999. 270 Article 233 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.