Copyright (c) 2025 Centros: Revista Científica Universitaria
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The objective of the research that resulted in the article presented here was to determine which assumptions are not attributable to the precautionary nature of pretrial detention. The research method is based on documentary or bibliographic review, conducting a comparative law analysis of the application, in various countries, of assumptions that are not attributable to the precautionary nature of pretrial detention. This documentary and comparative law review began by examining scientific articles and texts by renowned jurists and researchers on the assumptions considered for the application of the precautionary measure: pretrial detention, as well as judgments of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights regarding cases on assumptions not attributable to the precautionary nature of pretrial detention applied in rulings from various countries. The analysis of the results determined that the assumptions not attributable to the precautionary nature of pretrial detention have been, for the most part, social unrest, frequency, the defendant's criminal record, and the seriousness of the crime. All the authors and legal norms studied from various countries, as well as the reviewed judgments, lead to the conclusion that there are only two conditions legally attributable to the precautionary nature of pretrial detention: periculum in mora or risk of flight and fumus boni iuris or title of good law.
