60 B. Conditions for use 1. Legitimate reasons or grounds for applicability 143. First of all, according to the regime established by the American 201 Convention, pretrial detention may only be ordered in criminal proceedings. Similarly, the Inter-American Court has consistently held that the provisions of the American Convention – and, in the Commission’s view, the provisions of the American Declaration as well – give rise to “the obligation of the State not to restrict the liberty of a detained person beyond the limits strictly necessary to ensure that he will not impede the efficient development of an investigation and that he will not evade justice; preventive detention is, therefore, a precautionary rather than a punitive measure” 202 (emphasis added). This criterion, whereby pretrial detention should only be used for procedural purposes to protect the results of the proceedings, was subsequently reiterated by the Court in the following terms: [E]ven in these circumstances [sufficient evidence to allow reasonable supposition that the accused took part in the offense under investigation], the deprivation of liberty of the accused cannot be based on general preventive or special preventive purposes, which could be attributed to the punishment, but […] based on a legitimate purpose, which is: to ensure that the accused does not prevent the 203 proceedings from being conducted or elude the system of justice. The personal characteristics of the supposed author and the gravity of the offense he is charged with are not, in themselves, sufficient 204 justification for preventive detention. 201 The European Court has ruled in a similar way regarding the equivalent provisions contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. See, in this regard, ECHR, Case of Ostendorf v. Germany (Application No. 15598/08), Judgment of March 7, 2013 (Fifth Section of the Court), para. 68. 202 I/A Court H.R., Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 77. It reiterated that same position later, in cases including: I/A Court H.R., Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 93; I/A Court H.R., Case of Servellón García et al. v. Honduras. Judgment of September 21, 2006. Series C No. 152, para. 90; I/A Court H.R., Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, para. 198; I/A Court H.R., Case of Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, para. 111; I/A Court H.R., Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 180. 203 I/A Court H.R., Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206, para. 111; I/A Court H.R., Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 103. 204 I/A Court H.R., Case of Bayarri v. Argentina. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of October 30, 2008. Series C No. 187, para. 74; I/A Court H.R., Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 69.