- 91 - B.3 The arbitrary nature of the preventive detention 250. In this section, the Court will analyze whether the order of preventive detention issued on May 10, 2006, against the presumed victims by the Second Criminal Trial Court of Toluca in the context of cases 95/2006 and 96/2006 was in keeping with the Convention.348 251. This Court has indicated that, for deprivation of liberty not to become arbitrary, it must meet the following standards: (i) its purpose must be compatible with the Convention; (ii) it must be appropriate to meet the stated purpose; (iii) it must be necessary; in other words, it must be absolutely essential to achieve the desired purpose and there is no less severe measure in relation to the right affected; (iv) it must be strictly proportionate, so that the sacrifice inherent in the restriction of the right to personal liberty is not exaggerated or disproportionate in relation to the advantages obtained by this restriction and compliance with the purpose sought, and (v) any restriction of personal liberty that is not based on sufficient justification, permitting an evaluation of whether it is in keeping with the conditions indicated, will be arbitrary and, therefore, will violate Article 7(3) of the Convention.349 The Court also reiterates that the only legitimate purpose for the deprivation of liberty of the accused is to ensure that he or she will not hinder the development of the proceedings or evade justice. 350 Risks to the proceedings should not be presumed, but must be verified in each case, based on real and objective circumstances relating to the specific case.351 252. In the instant case, the Court notes that, on none of the 346 pages that compose the order of preventive detention issued by the Second Criminal Trial Court on May 10, 2006, in criminal proceeding 96/2006, subjecting ten of the eleven women victims in this case to preventive detention, is there a mention of the need to order this measure or the purpose of preventing Yolanda Muñoz Diosdada, Ana María Velasco Rodríguez and María Cristina Sánchez Hernández were detained on May 3. The same day, the SPEM16 opened preliminary inquiry TOL/MD/I/330/2006. On May 7, 2006, they were brought before the Second Criminal Trial Court of Toluca for the offenses of attacks on highways and means of transportation, felony kidnapping, and organized crime. Norma Aidé Jiménez Osorio, Mariana Selvas Gómez, Georgina Edith Rosales Gutiérrez, Suhelen Gabriela Cuevas Jaramillo, Bárbara Italia Méndez Moreno, Angélica Patricia Torres Linares and Claudia Hernández Martínez were detained on May 4. The same day, the SPEM19 opened preliminary inquiry TOL/MD/III/332/2006. On May 7, 2006, they were brought before the Second Criminal Trial Court of Toluca for the offense of felony kidnapping and its consequences. On May 10, in the context of criminal proceedings 96/2006, preventive detention was ordered for ten women, while awaiting trial for the offense of attacks on highways and means of transportation, as well as for felony kidnapping in the case of Suhelen Gabriela Cuevas Jaramillo. In addition, María Patricia Romero Hernández was detained on May 3. The same day, the SPEM9 opened preliminary inquiry TEX/AMOD/III/603/2006. On May 4, 2006, she was brought before the Second Criminal Trial Court of Toluca for the offenses of carrying a prohibited weapon, assault and malicious injury. On May 10, 2006, in the context of criminal proceedings 95/2006, her preventive detention was ordered while awaiting trial for the offenses of carrying a prohibited weapon and injury. Cf. CNDH Recommendation No. 38/2006 of October 16, 2006 (evidence file, folios 28923, 29139, 29201, 29389, 29456, 29761, 29780, 29781, 29851, 29852, 29921, 29996 and 30078); order on the constitutional time limit of the preventive detention of the victim, María Patricia Romero Hernández (evidence file, folios 32110, 32111 and 32238), and order on the constitutional time limit of the preventive detention of several victims (evidence file, folios 32242 to 32252 and 32580 to 32583). 348 Cf. Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Peru. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, paras. 128 and 129, and Case of Amrhein v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 25, 2018. Series C No. 354, para. 356. 349 Cf. Case of Servellón García. Judgment of September 21, 2006. Series C No. 152, para. 90, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 25, 2018. Series C No. 354, para. 353. 350 Cf. Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206, para. 115, and Case of Wong Ho Wing v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 30, 2015. Series C No. 297, para. 250. 351