The abusive use and conditions of pre-trial detention 109. Pre-trial detention is supposed to be an exceptional measure, only to be used as a last resort, when alternative measures of restraint are insufficient to safeguard the integrity of the proceedings.242 Yet throughout the OSCE region there are major differences in the use of pre-trial detention among states, despite the fact that they are all subject to the same standards, such as the principle of legality and certainty (e.g., lengths of pre-trial detention prescribed by law), the prohibition of arbitrariness, the concept of reasonable suspicion243 and the right to trial within a reasonable time,244 as well as the fact that alternatives to detention are available in many states.245 Among the Council of Europe member States, the most recent detailed statistical data available were published in 2015.246 242 See e.g. See Varga and Others v. Hungary (nos 14097/12, 45135/12, 73712/12, 34001/13, 44055/13, and 64586/13; 10 March 2015), where the Court urged the Hungarian authorities to reduce the number of prisoners and to minimize recourse to pre-trial detention and to encourage the use of alternatives to detention. 243 The European Court of Human Rights has stated that for the decision on pre-trial detention and in order to be considered as a basis for the required “reasonable suspicion”, “hearsay evidence must be supported by objective evidence. This is especially true when a decision is being made whether to prolong detention pending trial: while a suspect may validly be detained at the beginning of proceedings on the basis of statements by indirect witnesses, such statements necessarily become less relevant with the passage of time, especially where no further evidence is uncovered during the course of the investigation,” ECtHR, Kavala v. Turkey (No. 28749/18), para. 130. 244 Furthermore, case-law to article 5 ICCPR sets five distinct grounds for pre-trial detention, namely, 1) risk of absconding; 2) risk of obstructing the investigation; 3) risk of committing further offence; 4) risk of causing public disturbance if released, and 5) the need to protect the detainee (Buzadji v. Moldova, no. 23755/07, § 88). 245 In EU countries collectively, for example, 22% of the total prison population were detainees held on remand or awaiting a final sentence in 2016. Fair Trials, “A Measure of Last Resort? The practice of pre-trial detention decision making in the EU”, (2016), p. 3. 246 It shows the highest numbers of detainees without a final sentence as a percentage of the total prison population to be in Andorra (59.6), Luxembourg (41.6), the Netherlands (46.3), Switzerland (40.6) and Turkey (49.6). 69