59 name, of the punitive detention: both are a deprivation of freedom, they (normally) occur in terrible conditions, they cause the subject and those that surround him a serious material and mental damage, and they normally have long-term repercussions, sometimes devastating. […] Therefore, among other things, it is necessary to seriously weigh in the justification, the characteristics, duration, and alternatives of the 197 preventive detention. 141. In addition, the non-exceptional use of pretrial detention poses a risk to the enjoyment of the right to the presumption of innocence and the guarantees of 198 legal due process, including the right of defense. Hence, given the nature of pretrial detention as the most severe measure that can be imposed on a suspect, for more than a decade the Inter-American Court has consistently ruled that “its use should be exceptional, limited by the principle of lawfulness, the presumption of innocence, and the need and proportionality, in keeping with what is strictly necessary in a democratic 199 society.” This principle has also been recognized in instruments that are universally accepted by the international community, such as the Standard Minimum Rules for Noncustodial Measures, which stipulate that “[p]re-trial detention shall be used as a means of last resort in criminal proceedings” (Rule 6.1). 142. In practical terms, the principle of exceptionality means that pretrial detention shall be admissible when it is the only way to ensure the goals of the proceedings, because it can be shown that less restrictive measures would be fruitless in securing those goals. For this reason, efforts should always be made to replace it with a 200 less severe measure when the circumstances allow. 197 I/A Court H.R., Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, Concurring Opinion of Judge Sergio García Ramírez, para. 18. 198 IACHR, Report No. 86/09, Case 12.553, Merits, Jorge, José, and Dante Peirano Basso, Uruguay, August 6, 2009, para. 94; IACHR, Report No. 12/96, Case 11.245, Merits, Jorge A. Giménez, Argentina, March 1, 1996, para. 84. 199 I/A Court H.R., Case of Bayarri v. Argentina. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of October 30, 2008. Series C No. 187, para. 69; I/A Court H.R., Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206, para. 121; 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. 107; I/A Court H.R., Case of Servellón García et al. v. Honduras. Judgment of September 21, 2006. Series C No. 152, para. 88; I/A Court H.R., Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 67; I/A Court H.R., Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Peru. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, para. 106; I/A Court H.R., Case of Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, para. 74; I/A Court H.R., Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 106. 200 IACHR, Report No. 86/09, Case 12.553, Merits, Jorge, José, and Dante Peirano Basso, Uruguay, August 6, 2009, para. 100.