VII. CONCLUSIONS 317. The non-exceptional use of pretrial detention is one of the most serious and widespread problems faced by OAS member States in respecting and guaranteeing the rights of persons deprived of liberty. The excessive use or abuse of this measure is one of the clearest signs of failure in the justice administration system, and it constitutes an unacceptable situation in democratic societies that strive to uphold the right of all citizens to be presumed innocent. 318. In a democratic society, the criminal justice system is founded on the primacy of human dignity and fundamental rights. These include the guarantee of personal liberty, the right to due process and the presumption of innocence, which translate into the right of every person to remain free throughout criminal proceedings. 319. Pretrial detention is a strictly extraordinary measure, and its application should comply with the principles of legality, presumption of innocence, reasonableness, necessity, and proportionality. This measure can only be ordered in the cases expressly provided by law and in accordance with the requirements thereby established. It is permissible only when directed at accomplishing its legitimate aims, which according to Article 7.5 of the American Convention are: (a) preventing the accused from evading justice, for which the degree of attachment of the accused to the community, its conduct during the proceedings and the severity of the charges and the foreseen sentence may be taken into account; and (b) avoiding obstruction of the investigation and the trial by the accused, which could be assessed by looking at the capacity of the accused to alter the evidence, influence witnesses or induce other persons to commit these acts. 320. One of the fundamental guarantees flowing from due process and the presumption of innocence is access to an effective recourse before an independent judge to challenge the order of pretrial detention. This recourse should work to fully guarantee the right to defense of the accused and to enable the competent judicial authority to go beyond a mere formal revision and conduct a comprehensive analysis of all the procedural and substantive issues that served as grounds for the challenged decision. 321. Similarly, given that the period of pretrial detention should not exceed a reasonable period, the State has the duty to periodically review the existence of the circumstances that led to the application of the measure in the first place. In this regard, the judge has a duty to periodically review whether the pretrial detention remains reasonable and necessary to fulfill its legitimate purposes. 322. According to international human rights law, detaining a person prior to the enactment of a final judgment should be the exception and not the rule, precisely because of the right to the presumption of innocence. It is therefore a distortion of the rule of law and of the criminal justice system for pretrial detention to be used as an anticipated sentence or as a way to mete out swift justice prior to adopting a judgment issued in compliance with the standards of due process. Making it seem like an