106 | Towards the Closure of Guantanamo final determination. The IACHR notes that, in making the determination, the Board assessed, among other factors, the detainee’s potential threat upon transfer, his plans for the future, his family’s support, skills and employment prospects, behavior in detention, the efficacy of rehabilitation programs in the country of destination, and the commitment to refrain from supporting extremist groups. 260. According to inter-American standards, persons in pretrial detention have the right to a periodic judicial review of the grounds for their detention in accordance with due process guarantees. In this regard, the IACHR has stated that: the right to the presumption of innocence and the exceptional nature of pretrial detention give rise to the State’s duty to periodically review that the circumstances on which its initial imposition was based still exist. This process of subsequent appraisal is characterized by the fact that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, procedural risks tend to decrease with the passage of time. As a result, the State’s explanations of the need to keep a person in pretrial detention should be more convincing and better grounded as time progresses. 313 261. The Inter-American Commission has also indicated that judicial authorities are required to effectively guarantee the possibility of submitting arguments and that the reasoning offered by the judge must clearly show that the body of evidence has been rigorously examined. 314 262. The IACHR notes that the PRB review process is not a judicial proceeding but a discretionary administrative process. Although it is preferable that internment review in the context of armed conflicts be carried out by a judicial body, States can choose to have an administrative board as the review body in that context. According to the ICRC, “the important issue is that persons are not arbitrarily interned and that their internment is reviewed by a body that can effectively do so and order release as soon as interment is no longer necessary.” Therefore, regardless of the nature of the body, the review must be performed by a body that is independent and impartial. 315 263. Assuming that context of armed conflict, in order to be independent and impartial, a review body should comply, among others, with the following requirements: transparency of the procedures and their implementation; direct decision making power (i.e. power to order release without that decision being subject to further confirmation by operational command); access to all available information; members of the review body should be appointed from outside the chain of 313 315 IACHR, Report on the Use of Pretrial Detention in the Americas, OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 46/13, December 30, 2013, para. 202. 314 IACHR, Report on the Use of Pretrial Detention in the Americas, OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 46/13, December 30, 2013, para. 205. International Review of the Red Cross, Reports and Documents, Expert meeting on procedural safeguards for security detention in non-international armed conflicts, Chatham House and International Committee of the Red Cross, London, 22-23 September 2008, Volume 91 Number 876, December 2009, pp. 878-879. Organization of American States | OAS