38 consequence, pretrial detention is on occasions used as a form of anticipated sentence or swift justice, completely ignoring its precautionary role in proceedings –a survey conducted in Chile found that 70% of the judges interviewed agreed that pretrial 132 detention is sometimes used as a form of anticipated sentence. And what is clear, as noted by the Justice Studies Center of the Americas (CEJA), is that challenges to the full enjoyment of the principles of presumption of innocence and the exceptional nature of pretrial detention “do not arise from legal debate but from outside it, from places 133 where arguing based on principles seems to have either little or no effect.” 87. According to a study published by CEJA, over the nine years from 1999 to 2008, eleven of the region’s countries adopted sixteen legal reforms (in addition to other more recent ones referred to in this chapter) basically seeking to promote or expand the admissibility of pretrial detention, ignoring or stripping it of its 134 precautionary nature. In this context, three general trends or legislative mechanisms 135 have been identified: (a) The establishment of offenses for which release from prison is not allowed or is made significantly more difficult to obtain. The legislature establishes a priori that people charged with certain crimes must necessarily remain incarcerated until a judgment is issued. In general terms, this restriction can be made by expressly identifying the list of offenses in which pretrial detention is obligatory, or by stating, in law, the assumption that some of the requirements for the admissibility of pretrial detention are met in accordance with criteria previously set by the legislature (e.g., establishing the legal presumption of the accused’s flight risk in crimes with a given minimum sentence, with which the imposition of pretrial detention in such cases is, de facto, mandatory). 132 Paz Ciudadana Foundation, Judges’ Opinion Poll: Evaluation of personal precautionary measures and other related topics (Encuesta de opinión de jueces: Evaluación de las medidas cautelares personales y otros temas relacionados), 2010, p. 11. 133 CEJA, Judicial Systems – Pretrial Detention (Sistemas Judiciales – Prisión Preventiva), Year 7, No. 14: Cristian Riego, A New Agenda for Pretrial Detention in Latin America (Una nueva agenda para la prisión preventiva en América Latina), p. 7. 134 These were: Argentina (Province of Buenos Aires): Law 13.449 of 2006; Bolivia: Law 2.494 of 2003; Chile: Law 20.074 of 2005 and Law 20.253 of 2008; Colombia: Law 1.142 of 2007; Costa Rica: Law 8.589 of 2007; Ecuador: Law 23-101 of 2003; El Salvador: Decree No. 752 of 1999, Legislative Decree No. 487 of 2001, Legislative Decree No. 458 of 2004, and Legislative Decree No. 386 of 2007; Guatemala: Decree No. 30 of 2001 and Decree No. 51 of 2002; Honduras: Decree No. 223 of 2005; Paraguay: Law 2.493 of 2004; and Venezuela: Official Gazette No. 5.558 of 2001. CEJA, Judicial Systems – Pretrial Detention (Sistemas Judiciales – Prisión Preventiva), Year 7, No. 14: Claudio Fuentes Maureira, Pretrial Regime in Latin America: Anticipated Punishment, Precautionary Nature and Counterreform (Régimen de prisión preventiva en América Latina: la pena anticipada, la lógica cautelar y la contrarreforma), p. 37. 135 From the report Counterreform and the Inter-American System of Human Rights (Contrarreforma y el Sistema Interamericano de Derechos Humanos), presented by representatives of the CEJA and Open Society at an information session with the members of the IACHR, held on November 1, 2010, during the 140th period of regular sessions. IACHR, Press Release 109/10 – IACHR Concludes its 140th Period of Sessions, Annex, available at: http://www.cidh.org/Comunicados/English/2010/109a-10eng.htm.