86 216. In addition, and in accordance with children’s best interests, the competent judicial authorities should apply the criteria of necessity, proportionality, and reasonableness more strictly when they consider ordering the pretrial detention of people who are responsible for children. In such cases, the use of precautionary measures other than pretrial detention should be favored. For example, the Commission has observed that a high percentage of the women deprived of freedom who are responsible for children were arrested for nonviolent crimes, such as small-scale drug dealing. C. Right to reparation for the undue imposition of pretrial detention 217. Article 9.5 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 316 to which thirty OAS member States are parties, expressly states that “[a]nyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforceable right to 317 Although there is no equivalent provision in the American compensation.” Convention, the obligation of providing reparation for violations of the right to personal liberty arises from the States’ general obligation of making adequate amends for any impairment of the rights and freedoms the Convention protects. 218. Article 1.1 of the Convention establishes the duty of States to ensure the free and full exercise of the rights and freedoms it recognizes with respect to all persons subject to their jurisdiction. From this duty arises the obligation of restoring the 318 infringed right and repairing the harm produced. Making reparations for the effects of human rights violations is the logical consequence of fully ensuring those rights. Thus, according to the legal regime established by the American Convention, States are required to make amends for violations within their jurisdictions of the right to personal liberty under Article 7, which of course includes those related to the imposition of pretrial detention. Consequently, States should institute, in their domestic legal systems, appropriate legal mechanisms to ensure effective access to this type of reparation. 219. The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detentions has recommended that States “remedy arbitrary detention mainly by immediate release and compensation as required by international human rights conventions and customary international law.” The Commission shares this position and emphasizes that, in fact, merely releasing a person who has been illegally or arbitrarily deprived of liberty 316 Namely: Argentina, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, United States of America, Uruguay, and Venezuela. 317 This provision is not the only one of its kind in international law. Article 5.5 of the European Convention also enshrines this right. 318 4, para. 166. I/A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No.