73 the case. In turn, judges should clearly indicate the maximum duration of detention in 255 their resolutions ordering pretrial detention. Decision process 178. Regarding the juncture in the proceedings when the admissibility of pretrial detention is assessed, it must be noted that in accordance with the right to the presumption of innocence, the court must examine all the facts and arguments in favor of or against the existence of procedural risks that could justify the imposition or 256 continuation of this measure, as applicable. Judges should issue decisions ordering 257 pretrial detention after a substantive, not merely formal, analysis of each case. It is for this reason that it is important that the stakeholders involved in this decision-making process have sufficient evidence about the procedural risks and legal assumptions that are to be assessed. To this end, systems with information and for verifying that information prior to the trial must be established. In this regard, the mechanisms known as pretrial evaluation and supervision services and offices for alternative and replacement measures have proven to be a good practice. 179. The accused person shall have the possibility to appear at the proceedings where the application of pretrial detention will be decided. Under certain conditions, this requirement may be satisfied through the use of appropriate video 258 links, provided that the right of defense is guaranteed. All accused persons have the right to be heard by the judge and to personally argue against their detention; pretrial 259 detention should not be decided exclusively on the reading of the case file. Moreover, the decision adopting this measure “should be taken by the judge himself after hearing 260 the detainee in person, not by investigating judges or clerks of the court.” 180. In addition to upholding the principle of immediacy, a prior hearing on the admissibility of pretrial detention allows, inter alia, the accused and the defense team to be apprised ahead of time of the arguments used to infer flight risk or the risk of interference with the investigation. It also provides a better forum, for both the defense and the prosecution, to present their arguments in favor of or against the 255 UN, Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Annual Report presented to the Human Rights Council, A/HRC/7/4, published January 10, 2008, para. 72. 256 IACHR, Report No. 86/09, Case 12.553, Merits, Jorge, José, and Dante Peirano Basso, Uruguay, August 6, 2009, paras. 86 and 87. 257 UN, Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, E/CN.4/2004/3/Add.3, published December 23, 2003, para. 65. Report on Mission to Argentina, 258 Council of Europe / Committee of Ministers, Recommendation Rec(2006)13 on the use of remand in custody, the conditions in which it takes place, and the provision of safeguards against abuse, adopted September 27, 2006, para. 28. 259 UN, Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Report on Mission to Ecuador, A/HRC/4/40/Add.2, published October 26, 2006, paras. 70 and 71. 260 UN, Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, E/CN.4/2004/3/Add.3, published December 23, 2003, para. 65. Report on Mission to Argentina,