72 loose interpretations of what could be delaying tactics by defense counsel should be avoided. 4. Competent authority, decision process, grounding and evidence Competent authority 175. The Commission understands that according to Article 7.5 of the Convention the decision to impose pretrial detention must necessarily fall to a judicial 251 authority, given that only a judge can be responsible for making a judgment on the procedural risk. In addition, as with the immediate judicial oversight of the detention (arrest or apprehension), that authority must meet the requirements set forth in the 252 first paragraph of Article 8 of the Convention. The nature of the authority that orders the detention is determined essentially by the powers and authorities assigned by the 253 constitutional order. 176. Similarly, the United Nations Human Rights Committee has consistently held that prosecutors are not suitable authorities for ordering pretrial detention, in that, unless the State proves otherwise, they cannot be considered to have the necessary objectivity and impartiality to be deemed “officer[s] authorized by law to exercise judicial power” in the terms of Article 9.3 of the International Covenant on Civil 254 and Political Rights. Consequently, the responsibility of imposing pretrial detention, ordering its continuation, and implementing alternative measures must rest with judicial authorities. 177. In addition, in requesting the imposition of pretrial detention, prosecutors should indicate the proposed duration and give grounds for their request pursuant to the goals and criteria examined in this report. It is a breach of the rules and standards of international human rights law for prosecutors to repeatedly and automatically request the maximum duration of pretrial detention permissible by law, without indicating the grounds and without considering the specific characteristics of 251 IACHR, Report No. 86/09, Case 12.553, Merits, Jorge, José, and Dante Peirano Basso, Uruguay, August 6, 2009, paras. 115 and 116. 252 paras. 74-75. I/A Court H.R., Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, 253 I/A Court H.R., Case of Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, para. 80; I/A Court H.R., Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 119. 254 UN, HRC, Communication No. 1547/2007, Munarbek Torobekov v. Kyrgyzstan, decision of October 27, 2011, CCPR/C/103/D/1547/2007, para. 6.2; UN, HRC, Communication No. 1369/2005, Felix Kulov, decision of July 26, 2010, CCPR/C/99/D/1369/2005, para. 8.4. The European Court has issued similar rulings. See, for example, ECHR, Case of Moulin v. France (Application No. 37104/06), Judgment of November 23, 2010, paras. 57 to 59; ECHR, Case of Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria (Application No. 24760/94), Judgment of October 28, 1998 (Grand Chamber), paras. 146 to 148; ECHR, Case of Huber v. Switzerland (Application No. 12794/879), Judgment of October 23, 1990 (Grand Chamber), para. 41.