74 ordering of pretrial detention or, if applicable, of other less restrictive measures. Clearly, oral proceedings guarantee that all matters related to the enforcement of the precautionary measure can be discussed. 181. At this juncture, mention should again be made of the need for suitable systems to schedule and hold hearings, so that scheduled hearings are actually carried out, thereby reducing the number of cancelled and rescheduled hearings. In addition, the judicial authority responsible for imposing or continuing the imposition of pretrial detention should hear and decide on the matter without delay. Grounds and sufficient evidence 182. One fundamental principle, firmly established in the Inter-American Court’s jurisprudence, is that “decisions adopted by domestic bodies that could affect 261 human rights must be duly justified; otherwise, they are arbitrary.” Similarly, with respect to the right to personal liberty, the WGAD has stated that “the legal basis justifying the detention must be accessible, understandable, non-retroactive and 262 applied in a consistent and predictable way to everyone equally.” 183. In the case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, the InterAmerican Court specifically ruled that any decision restricting the right to personal liberty through the imposition of pretrial detention must have adequate grounding in order to assess whether the detention is in compliance with the conditions required (reasonable indications linking the accused, legitimate end, exceptional application, and 263 criteria of necessity, reasonableness, and proportionality). That duty of providing adequate grounds also applies to later judicial resolutions deciding whether to continue with the detention or not, regardless of whether the review thereof is conducted on an ex officio basis or at the request of an interested party. In general terms, the Court has ruled that “[t]he grounds are the exteriorization of the reasoned justification that allows a conclusion to be reached,” and that they “must be provided to be able to guarantee the right to defense. […] [T]he reasoning offered by the judge must show clearly that the arguments of the parties have been duly taken into account and the body of evidence 264 examined rigorously.” 261 I/A Court H.R., Case of Yvon Neptune v. Haiti. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 180, para. 108; I/A Court H.R., Case of Yatama v. Nicaragua. Judgment of June 23, 2005. Series C No. 127, para. 152. 262 UN, Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Annual Report presented to the Human Rights Council, A/HRC/22/44, published December 24, 2012, para. 62. 263 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. 264 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, paras. 107 and 118.