110 inmate must have in shared cells; this ruling was later reiterated in the case of Torreggiani and others v. Italy. In both decisions, the European Court described overcrowding as a structural deficiency, and considered that the use of alternative 389 measures to imprisonment was a viable way to confront the problem. 292. The Commission reiterates that effective attention to overcrowding requires States to adopt policies and strategies including, among other things, the legislative and institutional reforms required to ensure a more rational use of pretrial detention, and for this measure to be only used as a last resort and an as exception to the rule; enforcement of the maximum time limits established by law for detainees to 390 remain in pretrial detention; and promotion of the use of alternative measures. 293. The solution to this problem, as has been raised in this report, is not just to build new prison facilities. Investment projects to build new prisons should be part of a broader public policy that includes specific strategies aimed at reducing overcrowding from the standpoint of a technical understanding of the crime problem, effective operation of the criminal justice system and general crime prevention strategies. With respect to the pretrial stage of criminal proceedings, these strategies should include, as has been noted above, measures designed to reduce the use and duration of pretrial detention, and promote the use of alternative precautionary measures. 294. This approach to the problem of overcrowding has been shared as well by courts in some member States, such as the Colombian Constitutional Court, which ruled as follows in its historic judgment T-153/98: The Court is conscious that the problem of prisons cannot be solved solely with money and construction. Everything seems to indicate that in the country a prison-centered view of criminal law continues to reign supreme. As long as this view continues to prevail, there will never be enough space in prisons. Consequently, the Court deems it important to bring attention to the fact that the principle of the presumption of innocence requires that pretrial detention be used only as a measure of last resort […]. […] The view expressed about pretrial detention and of imprisonment does not deny citizens’ right to have the State make sure they are safe. 389 European Court of Human Rights, Case of Torreggiani and Others v. Italy, Judgment January 8, 2013 (Second Section), paras. 76 and 95; European Court of Human Rights, Case of Ananyev and Others v. Russia, Judgment January 10, 2012 (First Section of the Court), paras. 144 – 145 and 197 et seq. 390 IACHR, Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on the Situation of Persons Deprived of Liberty in Honduras, para. 68; IACHR, Report on the Human Rights of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas, para. 462.