61 144. In line with this, the Inter-American Commission understands that the terms of Article 7.5 of the Convention establish, as the sole legitimate grounds for pretrial detention, the risk of the accused attempting to escape justice or hindering the judicial investigation. Thus, the specific purpose of using this precautionary measure is to ensure that the proceedings are conducted successfully by neutralizing the procedural risks that could thwart that goal. Consequently, the justification of pretrial detention for preventive reasons – such as the dangerousness of the accused, the possibility of his committing crimes in the future, or the social repercussions of such acts – runs contrary to this provision and to the right to the presumption of innocence and is inconsistent with the principle of pro homine interpretation. This is true not only for the reasons given, but because such stances are based on criteria of substantive, not 205 procedural, criminal law, which are characteristic of the punitive response. 145. It falls to the competent judicial authorities – in particular, to prosecutors – and not to the accused or his defense counsel, to establish the existence of the elements necessary to determine a flight risk or the risk of the investigation being 206 hindered. In addition, pursuant to the right to the presumption of innocence and the exceptionality criterion, even when a possible legitimate justification exists, the use of pretrial detention must be considered and carried out in accordance with the criteria of necessity, proportionality, and reasonableness. 146. Moreover, as this report makes clear, the legitimacy of the grounds for admitting pretrial detention derives from their compatibility with the American Convention and not from the mere fact that they are included in statutes: it is possible for legal provisions to establish criteria or grounds for its use that run contrary to the regime created by the Convention. Thus, the Inter-American Court has stated that “the legislation that establishes the grounds for a restriction to personal liberty must be issued pursuant to the principles that govern the Convention, and be conducive to the 207 effective observation of the guarantees established thereto.” 2. Invalid or inadequate grounds 147. In line with the foregoing, the bodies of the Inter-American system have addressed several grounds for the imposition of pretrial detention that, even when provided for by statute, are incompatible with the regime established by the American Convention. 205 IACHR, Report No. 86/09, Case 12.553, Merits, Jorge, José, and Dante Peirano Basso, Uruguay, August 6, 2009, paras. 81 and 84; IACHR, Report No. 77/02, Case 11.506, Merits, Waldermar Gerónimo Pinheiro and José Victor Dos Santos, Paraguay, December 27, 2000, para. 66. 206 IACHR, Application from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in Case 12.554, Francisco Usón Ramírez, July 25, 2008, para. 172. 207 I/A Court H.R., Case of Servellón García et al. v. Honduras. Judgment of September 21, 2006. Series C No. 152, para. 89.