39 88. Some legal systems have chosen to include provisions that, while not completely disallowing every defendant facing trial from remaining at liberty, do make it significantly more difficult to secure that possibility, through the establishment of special procedures or requirements, or of assumptions under which, in given circumstances, the judge can or must determine that procedural risk exists (which, in principle, would be grounds for ordering custodial measures). In general, on this point, different legal systems tend to preserve minimal margins for judicial discretion or appraisal, in order to avoid becoming notably illegitimate (or contrary to the constitutional and/or Conventional order). (b) Prohibition of other personal precautionary measures that are less onerous to the accused than pretrial detention. In this situation, which is similar to that of offenses in which release from prison is not allowed, pretrial detention is required for as long as the proceedings go on, and the courts are prohibited from ordering other less restrictive alternatives measures. This leads to the de facto standard that the only admissible precautionary measure in such cases is detention, with no consideration given to other less severe restrictions that might be appropriate. (c) Expansion of the grounds for pretrial detention beyond mere precautionary considerations. By means of legal formulas: (1) that tend to expand the grounds of flight risk to a hypothesis that goes beyond the precautionary purpose by, for example, emphasizing such considerations as the seriousness of the offense and the sentence expected in the event of a conviction; or (2) that establish grounds for the admissibility of pretrial detention other than traditional or precautionary ones, which respond to punitive criteria or to perceptions of risk, such as the danger of recidivism. 89. To return to the examples of Colombia and Bolivia, whose criminal justice reform processes have already been described above, the following specific reforms were adopted in connection with the use of pretrial detention: 90. Colombia’s Law 1142 of 2007 adds a fourth justification for the ordering of pretrial detention, by establishing that it is allowed when the accused was arrested for a crime or misdemeanor in the previous 12 months, provided that the earlier case did not conclude with a finding of inadmissibility or with an acquittal (Art. 26). Law 1453 of 2011 stiffened this provision by extending the timescale from one to three years (Art. 60). 91. In addition, Law 1142 of 2007 states that to determine whether the accused’s liberty would pose a danger to the safety of the community, it is enough to consider the seriousness and nature of the punishable act (Art. 24). The Constitutional Court ruled this article enforceable in the understanding that the judge, in reaching such a determination, must invariably assess the other circumstances provided for in law 136 However, Law 1453 of 2011 (Art. 310 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). reintroduced the provision that in determining whether the accused’s liberty would 136 Constitutional Court, Judgment C-1198/08, December 4, 2008, Justice Nilson Pinilla Pinilla.