75 184. Regarding the first situation, that of the initial imposition of the precautionary measure, the Court considered the following facts: The court order that required the remand in custody of the victims did not include a description, however brief, of the circumstances as regards the time, means and place in which Mr. Lapo supposedly committed the criminal offense, or any indication of the act or omission attributed to him, specifying the elements on which the accusation was based. In Mr. Chaparro’s case, the judicial authority did not provide grounds for why she believed preventive detention was essential to ‘guarantee the presence’ of the accused or to allow the proceedings to be conducted. Furthermore, she did not indicate the offense committed by the two victims. Consequently, the order for remand in custody issued against Messrs. Chaparro and Lapo was 265 arbitrary. 185. Once a relationship has been established between the facts under investigation and the accused, the next step is to determine the existence of the procedural risk that is to be mitigated with detention during the proceedings – the risk of flight or of hampering the investigation –, which must be grounded on objective circumstances. Merely referring to or listing the grounds for admissibility, without examining and analyzing the circumstances of the case, does not satisfy this 266 requirement. As the European Court has stated, the arguments presented by the court should not be general and abstract, but contain references to the specific facts 267 and to the applicant’s personal circumstances justifying his detention. 186. In other words, justice cannot function “automatically,” following patterns, stereotypes or preset formulas in which only certain conditions of the accused are checked without furnishing grounded reasons to justify the necessity and 268 proportionality of holding him in custody during the proceedings. It falls to the court, 265 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. 105. 266 IACHR, Report No. 86/09, Case 12.553, Merits, Jorge, José, and Dante Peirano Basso, Uruguay, August 6, 2009, paras. 80 and 85. 267 ECHR, Case of Aleksanyan v. Russia (Application No. 46468/08), Judgment of December 22, 2008 (First Section of the Court), para. 179; ECHR, Case of Panchenko v. Russia (Application No. 45100/98), Judgment of February 8, 2006 (Fourth Section of the Court), para. 107; ECHR, Case of Piruzyan v. Armenia (Application No. 33376/07), Judgment of June 26, 2012 (Third Section of the Court), para. 96; ECHR, Case of Becciev v. Moldova (Application No. 9190/03), Judgment of October 4, 2005 (Fourth Section of the Court), para. 59. In the last two of these cases, the European Court specifically spoke of the risk of the accused interfering with the due course of the proceedings, indicating that it must be based on “factual evidence.” 268 See, for example, ECHR, Case of Sulaoja v. Estonia (Application No. 55939/00), Judgment of February 12, 2005 (Fourth Section of the Court), para. 64; ECHR, Case of Piruzyan v. Armenia (Application No. 33376/07), Judgment of June 26, 2012 (Third Section of the Court), para. 99.