16 Court has indicated that, owing to this reference to the Constitution and the laws established “pursuant thereto,” the examination of the observance of Article 7(2) of the Convention entails an analysis of compliance with the requirements established in this body of law. If the domestic normative is not respected when depriving an individual of his liberty, this deprivation will be unlawful and contrary to the American Convention,38 in light of Article 7(2). Consequently, the Court’s task is to verify whether the detention of Juan Carlos Bayarri was carried out in accordance with Argentine law. 55. Article 18 of the 1853 Argentine Constitution, in force at the time of the facts, established that no one can be “arrested unless it is by virtue of a written order of a competent authority […].”39 While article 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in force at the time of the detention of Juan Carlos Bayarri provided that “no one can be subjected to preventive detention without a written order of a competent judge issued against a specific person and based on the existence, against that person, of half proof of an offense or strong evidence of guilt.” 56. Based on the law in force at the time of the facts,40 it is clear that all detentions, except those carried out in flagrante delicto, must be preceded by a written order of a competent judge. Under this assumption, the person detained must be made available promptly to a competent judge, who must take the necessary steps to order his preventive detention or release. This Court must examine whether Mr. Bayarri’s detention complied with these conditions. Judicial order issued by a competent authority 57. The Inter-American Commission indicated in its application that Juan Carlos Bayarri was detained without a prior judicial order at around 10 a.m. on November 18, 1991, by several members of the Fraud Division of the Argentine Federal Police, who, armed and dressed in civilian clothing, intercepted him in Villa Domínico, in the Avellaneda district, Province of Buenos Aires, and placed him, blindfolded and with his hands tied, in one of the vehicles they were driving, to transfer him to a clandestine detention center.41 The 38 Cf. case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez supra note 9, para. 57; and case of Yvon Neptune, supra note 14, para. 96. 39 Argentine Constitution adopted by the General Constituent Congress on May 1, 1853, reformed and approved by the National Convention "ad hoc" on September 25, 1860, as reformed by the Conventions of 1866, 1898 and 1957. http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Argentina/arg1853.html 40 Code of Criminal Procedure Cf. helpful evidence submitted by the State (file of attachments to the brief with the State’s final arguments, folios 6681 to 6797). The relevant part of the Code of Criminal Procedure establishes that: Art. 4. The Chief of Police of the Capital and his agents have the duty to detain anyone caught in flagrante delicto, and anyone against whom there is strong evidence or half proof of guilt, and such persons must be made available promptly to a competent judge. Art. 6. When the person presumed guilty has been detained and brought before the competent judge, the latter shall proceed, as soon as his normal working hours commence, to question that person and to take the necessary steps to order his preventive detention or his release. […] Art. 374. When a person must be arrested in another jurisdiction, the arrest shall be made by issuing an official or rogatory letter to the judicial authority of the place where that person resides, with a transcript of the judicial decision ordering the arrest or imprisonment. 41 In this regard, there is the official letter in which the Federal Secretary, Laura Amalia Benavides de Selvático, informed the Federal Judge, Manuel Humberto Blanco, in the context of application for habeas corpus 6,306, that the arrest warrant issued on November 19, 1991, could not be executed because Juan Carlos Bayarri had already been detained (Cf. file of attachments to the application, attachment 2.4, folio 70). There is also the official letter in which Nerio Bonifati, National Judge of First Instance informed the Judge responsible for Criminal