77 arrest in flagrante” – in other words, the elements contained in the police report created at the time of the incident under investigation. This, in the context of the circumstances of the case, led the Court to conclude that it represented a violation of 274 the principles and norms applicable to pretrial detention. This criterion developed by the Inter-American Court regarding the lack of suitability of police evidence as the sole grounds for pretrial detention is particularly relevant given that using this type of evidence to justify pretrial detention is a deep-rooted practice in some of the region’s 275 countries. 5. Effective legal assistance (public defense) 191. According to Article 8.2 of the American Convention, every person charged with a crime has the right to a series of minimum guarantees during the proceedings, including the following: prior notification in detail of the charges; adequate time and means for preparing a defense; and the inalienable right to be assisted by counsel provided by the State, if the accused does not defend himself personally or engage his own counsel within the time period established by law. 192. The bodies of the Inter-American system have established the following fundamental standards regarding those guarantees: (a) the State’s duty to provide prior and detailed information about the charges means informing the accused not only of the charge, but also of the reasons for it, the evidence on which it is based, and the legal definition given to the offense; this information should be explicit, clear, comprehensive, and sufficiently detailed to allow the defendant to fully exercise his 276 right of defense; (b) the right of defense is activated when a person is identified as the possible perpetrator of or accomplice in a punishable action, and it concludes only when the proceedings conclude, including, if applicable, the sentence execution 277 phase; (c) in consideration whereof, a person under investigation should have access to technical defense from that very moment, particularly during the proceeding at 278 which his statement is taken; (d) the legal assistance provided by the State should be 274 I/A Court H.R., Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, paras. 78 and 79. 275 See, for example, IACHR Regional Meeting of Experts on Pretrial Detention, May 9 and 10, 2013, Presentation by Dr. Ernesto Pazmiño Granizo, available in Spanish at: http://www.oas.org/es/cidh/ppl/actividades/prisionpreventiva.asp. 276 I/A Court H.R., Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206, para. 28. 277 I/A Court H.R., Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206, para. 29. In other cases, the Court has also spoken of the “the moment that an investigation of the person is ordered, or the authority orders or executes actions that entail an infringement of rights” in establishing the time when the right of defense is activated. See, for example, I/A Court H.R., Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2010. Series C No. 218, para. 132. 278 I/A Court H.R., Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220, para. 155; I/A Court H.R., Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206, para. 62. On this point, the United Nations Human Rights Committee has said that “it is axiomatic Continues…