89 the accused’s own home or that of another person, either without oversight or with such oversight as the judge may order. 225. The Commission considers that one fundamental standard is that so long as the flight risk or the danger of hindrance to the investigation can reasonably be avoided by subjecting the accused to a less onerous measure than the one requested by the prosecutor, the court should invariably prefer the former, imposing it either individually or in conjunction with others. 226. According to the European Court, under Article 5.3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (similar to Article 7.5 of the American Convention), “the authorities, when deciding whether a person should be released or detained, are 321 obliged to consider alternative measures to ensure his appearance at trial.” Similarly, in the case of Jablonski v. Poland, the ECHR found that Article 5.3 of the European Convention had been violated because the competent domestic courts: [D]id not take into account any other guarantees that [the victim] would appear for trial. They did not mention why those alternative measures would not have warranted his presence before the court or why, had the applicant been released, his trial would not have followed its proper course. Nor did they point to any factor indicating that there was a risk of his absconding, going into hiding, or otherwise 322 evading justice. 227. In addition, as already noted, once the reasonable period for the duration of pretrial detention has expired, the State loses the opportunity to continue 323 ensuring the purpose of the proceedings by denying the accused his liberty. In other words, the State can limit the accused’s freedom with other measures that are less 324 onerous than incarceration but that still ensure his appearance at trial. In this regard, the Commission has established that: [P]reventive detention may or may not be replaced by other less restrictive precautionary measures, but, in any case, the accused 321 ECHR, Case of Piruzyan v. Armenia (Application 33376/07), Third Section of the Court, Judgment of June 26, 2012, para. 103. See also, ECHR, Case of Kowrygo v. Poland (Application No. 6200/07, Fourth Section of the Court, Judgment of February 26, 2013, para. 70; ECHR, Case of Richet v. France (Application No. 3947/97), Fourth Section of the Court, Judgment of November 18, 2010, para. 64; and, ECHR, Case of Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine (Application No. 54825/00), Second Section of the Court, Judgment of April 5, 2005, para. 137. 322 ECHR, Case of Jablonski v. Poland (Application 33492/96), Fourth Section of the Court, Judgment of December 21, 2000, para. 84. 323 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. 120. 324 I/A Court H.R., Case of Bayarri v. Argentina. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of October 30, 2008. Series C No. 187, para. 70.