6 based on considerations that may prove their appropriateness and legitimacy. Obviously, this is not about backing the crime, but about preserving the rights of citizens, especially of those deprived of their freedom without having committed any crime. This brings with it the demand that the basis for the preventive detention as well as the conditions that make it admissible be well established, for now, that is, the need to preserve the process and security of those who intervene in it, using the deprivation of freedom when there is no other means available to reach those objectives. 20. Therefore, it is necessary to verify that in the cases in which the precautionary incarceration is proposed and issued, it is really necessary. For this, different references may be invoked, as elements of judgment subject to the assessment in each case, since it is about proving that in the specific case –and not in abstract, in general hypothesis—it is necessary to detain an individual. To base the detention on general considerations, without taking into account the information on the specific case, would open the door, in good logic –that in reality would be bad logic--, to submit people to restrictions and deprivations of all type and automatically, without proving that they are appropriate in the specific case under the consideration of the authority. 21. Thus the importance, in my concept, of absolute, mechanical exceptions, as well as inclusions of the same nature. It is necessary to assess each case, based on a governing concept: the preventive detention, which is clearly against the presumption of innocence, must have an exceptional nature and be strictly conditioned to the obtainment of the procedural and assuring purposes previously mentioned. Therefore, it must be reduced to the minimum number of cases, to the shortest duration, to the least detentions related to imprisonment, to a rule of systematic revision of its foundations in order to determine if the motives that previously explained the deprivation of freedom still exist. Likewise, it is precise to take into account the evidence collected on the facts and the guilt when the time for its application comes. If the sufficiency and reliability on the evidence must be present in order to start the process, the same should be necessary in order to order precautionary measures. 22. To base the preventive detention exclusively on the seriousness of the crime (that was allegedly) committed, on the punishment that the (alleged) author (eventually) deserves and the sentence (that would be) applicable, without considering –because the law itself eliminates the possibility to do so—other information that will permit the assessment of its specific legitimacy, for the due protection, also specifically, of the purposes that make it legal, flagrantly contradicts the presumption of innocence, it implies an anticipated (pre)judgment of the verdict (which is given a convicting nature long before it is issued) and expressly discloses that a conviction will be imposed. Therefore, it is arbitrary, even when legal. 23. In the operation of the preventive detention, as with other precautionary measures, two contradicting principles come into game, which may be called “legal prejudgment” on one extreme and “judicial responsibility” on the other. I speak of legal prejudgment in the sense of a generic and abstract, but binding, trial prior to the specific and concrete trial on the problem subject to legal consideration, which therefore results binding or excluding. That is what happens when the law upfront prevents the procedural liberty of the defendant while the process is being carried out, inexorably taking this trial out of the hands of the senior judge.