i. Deprivation of liberty whatever the form it takes 118. The State argued that Jeremías Osorio Rivera was deprived of his liberty because he was presumably in flagrant delicto, which is included in article 279 of the Peruvian Criminal Code in force at the time of the events and, also, a state of emergency was in place under which the right to personal liberty was suspended. This Court has indicated that when arguing that a detention has been carried out in flagrant delicto, the burden of proof falls on the State. 220 In this regard, the State indicated that: (i) Jeremías Osorio Rivera was deprived of his liberty after an explosion had occurred in the peasant community of Nunumia; (ii) the Army patrol under Lieutenant Tello Delgado had conducted an investigation, identifying Jeremías Osorio Rivera and his cousin, Gudmer Tulio Zárate Osorio, as those presumably responsible for the explosion, and (iii) a firearm (revolver) and explosive devices had been confiscated from Jeremías Osorio Rivera. 119. Consequently, the Court will proceed to verify whether the detention of Mr. Osorio Rivera was carried out in accordance with Peruvian law. To this end, it is important to mention that Supreme Decree No. 016-DE/SG of April 2, 1991, 221 extended the state of emergency in effect in the department of Lima and the constitutional province of Callao for 60 days as of April 3, 1991. This Decree established the suspension of the guarantees established in paragraphs 7, 9, 10 and 20(g) of article 2 of the Peruvian Constitution in force at the time of the facts, specifically: 7. The inviolability of the home; 9. To choose freely the place of residence, to move around national territory, and to leave it and to enter it and not to be repatriated or separated from the place of residence unless this is by court order or the application of the aliens law; 10. To assembly peacefully, without weapons, and 20(g). Not to be detained, unless by written and reasoned order of a judge or by the police authorities in flagrante delicto. In any case, the detainee must be brought before the corresponding court, within twentyfour hours or in function of the distance. Cases of terrorism, spying and illegal drug-trafficking are excepted, when the police authorities may carry out preventive detention of those presumably involved for no more than fifteen natural days, but must inform the Public Prosecution Service and the judge, who may assume jurisdiction before the end of this period. 120. This Court has established that the suspension of guarantees constitutes an exceptional situation in which it is licit for the Government to apply certain restrictive measures on rights and freedoms that, under normal conditions, are prohibited or subject to more rigorous requirements. The Court notes that the Convention does not prohibit the suspension of the right to personal liberty under Article 7 of the Convention, temporarily and to the extent strictly necessary to deal with the exceptional situation. Nevertheless, this Court has already indicated that, “according to Article 27(2) of this instrument, the legal procedures established in Articles 25(1) and 7(6) of the American Convention […] cannot be suspended, because they constitute essential judicial guarantees to protect rights and freedoms that cannot be suspended according to this same provision.” 222 Similarly, international human rights bodies have expressed a similar opinion that, as in the case of the right of everyone deprived of liberty to have recourse to a competent judge or 220 Cf., mutatis mutandi, Case of Gangaram Panday v. Suriname. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 21, 1994. Series C No. 16, paras. 50 and 51, and Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Merits. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 44. 221 Cf. Supreme Decree No. 016-DE/SG of April 2, 1991 (evidence file, volume IX, annex 16 to the State’s answering brief, folio 4649). 222 Habeas Corpus in Emergency Situations (Arts. 27.2, 25, and 7.6 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-8/87 of January 30, 1987. Series A No. 8, para. 24. See also Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27.2, 25 and 8 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987. Series A No. 9, and Case of Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of January 19, 1995. Series C No. 20, paras. 82 to 84. 44