118 314. Estimates of the costs of pretrial detention are useful in conducting future analyses of the measure’s costs and effectiveness, bearing in mind that other properly implemented supervisory measures or systems can attain the same goals that, in principle, are sought through pretrial detention, but with a lesser restriction of rights and, possibly, at a lower financial cost to the State and to detainees, their families, and 414 society. Moreover, a cost analysis would be useful in identifying poor practices within public policies and in determining the priorities of the criminal justice apparatus vis-à-vis 415 the official political discourse and the real needs of the challenges of citizen security. 315. The Inter-American Commission considers that it is possible to reconcile cost-related approaches to the application of pretrial detention with compliance with applicable international obligations. With appropriate information on the costs of the different criminal justice mechanisms available, and on those of implementing other primary and secondary preventive measures (see paras. 18 and 104, supra), the public spending can be planned in a way that is both efficient and compatible with the international obligations States have assumed. 316. Clearly, all this information generated about the use of pretrial detention should be deployed to analyze the real impact that this measure has on crime. This information gathered according to methodological criteria, should serve as the basis for the design, adoption, and implementation of States’ criminal policies, and they must be taken into account with full seriousness by governments and organs of popular representation when legislating on this matter. 414 Paz Ciudadana Foundation, The Costs of Pretrial Detention in Chile (Los Costos de la Prisión Preventiva en Chile), 2008, p. 45. 415 Center for the Implementation of Public Policies for Equity and Growth (CIPPEC), The social and economic cost of pretrial detention in Argentina (El costo social y económico de la prisión preventiva en la Argentina), Working document No. 29, 2009, pp. 9 and 10.