62 148. In the case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador, the Inter-American Court addressed a provision excluding people accused of drug-related crimes from the legal limits set for the duration of pretrial detention. The Court considered that “this exception deprives a part of the prison population of a fundamental right, on the basis of the crime of which it is accused and, hence, intrinsically injures everyone in that category.” The Court further observed that the law violated Article 2 of the American 208 Convention, whether or not it was enforced in the specific case. Those findings were 209 repeated in the Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador judgment. 149. In the case of López Álvarez v. Honduras, the Court analyzed the legal disposition that allowed the exclusion of precautionary measures other than pretrial detention based on the sentence applicable to the offense charged. The Court found that the deprivation of liberty suffered by the victim was the result of legislation that “ignored the need, enshrined in the American Convention, that the preventive detention be justified in each specific case, through the weighing of the elements that concurred in the same, and that in no case shall the application of said precautionary measure [pretrial detention] be determined by the crime with which the individual is 210 being charged.” 150. Later, in the case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela, the Court addressed the enforcement of a provision that allowed the accused to be detained merely by establishing the existence of “indications of guilt,” without requiring the determination of a legitimate goal. In that case, the Court said that “the arrest warrant, in none of the 454 pages, mentions the need to order the preventive detention of Mr. Barreto Leiva based on sufficient circumstantial evidence, which would persuade the objective observer that the accused would impede the conduct of the proceedings or elude justice.” Consequently, since the State had not provided “sufficient reasons regarding the achievement of a legitimate purpose in line with the Convention upon the issuance 211 of the arrest warrant,” the pretrial detention was arbitrary. 151. Likewise, in the case of Peirano Basso v. Uruguay, the Inter-American Commission found that (a) the type of crime and the severity of the punishment can be taken into account when the flight risk is examined (albeit not as the sole elements), but not as a rationale for the excessive protraction of pretrial detention, since a denial of 208 I/A Court H.R., Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 98. Similar to the Inter-American system, the European Court has ruled that “[a]ny system of mandatory detention on remand is per se incompatible with Article 5(3) of the Convention.” ECHR, Case of Ilijkov v. Bulgaria (Application No. 33977/96), Judgment of July 26, 2001 (Fourth Section of the Court), para. 84. 209 I/A Court H.R., Case of Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, 210 I/A Court H.R., Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. para. 135. 141, para. 81. 211 I/A Court H.R., Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206, paras. 115 and 116.