3 6. In this context, the Inter-American Commission considers that the excessive use of pretrial detention runs contrary to the very essence of the democratic 7 rule of law, and that implementing this measure as a form of expeditious justice that results in a kind of anticipated sentence is flagrantly contrary to the provisions of the American Convention and Declaration, and the principles from which the Charter of the 8 Organization of American States has drawn inspiration. Moreover, the use of pretrial detention is an important measure of the quality of the administration of justice and, as such, has a direct bearing on the quality of democracy. 7. The IACHR recognizes the duty of States to maintain public order and protect all persons under their jurisdiction from crime and violence. Nonetheless, the Commission reiterates the longstanding principle enshrined in the Inter-American system that “irrespective of the nature or gravity of the crime prosecuted, the investigation of the facts and the eventual trial of specific persons should be carried out within the limits and according to the procedures that permit public safety to be 9 preserved, with full respect for the human rights.” Additionally, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Court” or “the Court”) has held that “[t]he concept of rights and freedoms as well as that of their guarantees cannot be divorced from the system of values and principles that inspire it. In a democratic society, the rights and freedoms inherent in the human person, the guarantees applicable to them and the rule of law form a triad. Each component thereof defines itself, 10 complements and depends on the others for its meaning.” 8. As is covered in depth in this report, excessive use of pretrial detention is a complex problem caused by a variety of factors, such as: issues of legal design, structural deficiencies in administration of justice systems, interferences with judicial independence and deeply rooted tendencies in judicial culture and practice. IACHR, Press Release 23/13 – IACHR Wraps Up its 147th Session, Annex, available at: http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/media_center/PReleases/2013/023A.asp. 7 8 The IACHR has regarded it as “absolutely unacceptable for preventive detention to become, de facto, the usual form of operation of the administration of justice, without any due process, judge or verdict.” IACHR, Report on the Situation of Human Rights in the Dominican Republic, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.104. Doc. 49 rev. 1, adopted October 7, 1999 (hereinafter “Report on the Situation of Human Rights in the Dominican Republic”), Ch. VI, para. 224. In this regard, the Inter-American Democratic Charter expressly states “the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man and the American Convention on Human Rights contain the values and principles of liberty, equality, and social justice that are intrinsic to democracy.” 9 I/A Court H.R. Case of Yvon Neptune v. Haiti. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 180, para. 38. This fundamental principle of the Inter-American system was stated by the Court in its first judgment on the merits as follows: “regardless of the seriousness of certain actions and the culpability of the perpetrators of certain crimes, the power of the State is not unlimited, nor may the State resort to any means to attain its ends. The State is subject to law and morality.” I/A Court H.R. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Merits. Series C No. 4, para. 154. 10 I/A Court H.R. Habeas Corpus in Emergency Situations (Articles 27(2), 25(1) and 7(6) American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-8/87 of January 30, 1987. Series A No. 8, para. 26.