116 307. The need for the actions of prison administrations to be brought into line with the principle of transparency was also acknowledged by the OAS member States at the Second Meeting of Officials Responsible for the Penitentiary and Prison Policies, in the following terms: Transparency and openness will be promoted in prison management, taking all stakeholders into account and paying special attention to persons deprived of liberty and their family members, the judges enforcing or overseeing execution of sentences, civil society, and prison officers. In calling for transparency in correctional policies, mechanisms will be developed in these institutions to facilitate access to justice. To that end, and within the established framework of responsibilities, the prison warden will provide the opportunity for oversight of his/her actions by the competent entity with jurisdiction in this area. The behavior of all correctional system officers shall also 410 be geared to preventing corruption. C. Management of information on the use of pretrial detention 308. In line with the foregoing and with the State’s duty to adopt public policies to ensure rational use is made of incarceration, the Commission considers that one strategic element in those policies is the compilation of useful data for analyzing the 411 main aspects of the use of pretrial detention. 309. States should therefore establish indicators for setting measurable goals related to the rational use of pretrial detention, in accordance with international law; and, to reduce the related financial and human costs. The absence of indicators translates into an inability to carry out evaluations and make decisions based on objective parameters. 310. Those indicators should be suitable for allowing aspects such as the following to be analyzed: (a) the level of exposure to incarceration (generally expressed as the number of detainees per 100,000 inhabitants in the country, which can then be further broken down by age, gender and ethnicity; (b) the exceptionality of the use of pretrial detention, which is observable, for example, by looking at the number and percent of pretrial decisions and the number and percent of each alternative to pretrial detention dictated in a particular jurisdiction in a particular period of time, disaggregated by type of offences; (c) the level of compliance with or effectiveness of 410 OAS, Second Meeting of Officials Responsible for Penitentiary and Prison Policies in OAS Member States, Valdivia, Chile, August 26 to 28, 2008, OEA/Ser.K/XXXIV GAPECA/doc.8/08 rev. 2, December 16, 2008, section E, Oversight and Transparency. 411 The OAS member States’ prison authorities have also recommended the preparation of indicators, stating that “[i]mportance will be attached to developing instruments for periodically measuring the major factors or specific indicators of prison management.” OAS, Second Meeting of Officials Responsible for Penitentiary and Prison Policies in the OAS Member States, Valdivia, Chile, August 26 to 28, 2008, OEA/Ser.K/XXXIV GAPECA/doc.8/08 rev. 2, December 16, 2008, section E, Oversight and Transparency.