15 Court, by the circumstances surrounding the events, the condition of the witnesses, and the time that had elapsed since the events. 55. The witnesses' description of the vehicle as white is corroborated by the videotape submitted together with its application as evidence by the Inter-American Commission (Attachment XII), -and which the State did not refute, although it was duly transmitted to it- reproducing the pertinent part of the Peruvian television broadcast "90 Segundos" on the day of the events, showing a white police vehicle which participated, along with others, in the same operation. Hence, the photographs presented by the State at the public hearing on vehicles of other colors does not contradict the witnesses' statements. 56. In accordance with the above, the Court finds that Peru violated, to the detriment of Mr. Castillo-Páez, several paragraphs of Article 7 of the Convention, which governs personal liberty in a general manner. Firstly, it is proven that the victim was detained by members of the National Police of Peru without application of the causes and conditions set forth in the Political Constitution of July 12, 1979, in force at the time at which the detention took place, inasmuch as that fundamental law provided that no one may be arrested except by written order issued by a judicial authority, which did not occur in this Case. It has not been proven, nor has the State so claimed, that Mr. Castillo-Páez's detention took place when he was surprised in flagrante delicto in the commission of a crime or that there was a state of emergency in force at the time, circumstances which would have justified the victim's detention by police officers without any judicial intervention. The foregoing has its basis in Article 7, paragraphs 2 and 3, of the American Convention, and Article 2, paragraph 20 (g), of the Political Constitution. 57. Nor does it appear from the acts of the proceedings that the detainee had been brought before a competent court within 24 hours or otherwise if distance was a factor, nor within fifteen days on suspicion of terrorism, pursuant to Article 7, paragraph 5, of the Convention, and Article 2, paragraph 20(c), of the Constitution of Peru. 58. On the contrary, with the statements by Judge Elba Minaya-Calle during the public hearing (supra, para. 30.d.), it has been demonstrated that the police authorities denied the arrest and hid the detainee so that he could not be located by the aforementioned magistrate, since they furnished her with altered logs of entry of detainees. Mr. CastilloPáez' name did not appear in those logs, although those of other persons detained in the same operation did appear, and they had been placed at the disposal of the investigating authorities (DINCOTE). Ms. Minaya-Calle's testimony was confirmed by Mr. Cronwell Pierre Castillo-Castillo, father of the victim, who also conducted a fruitless search for his son in the police establishments. 59. The State simply denied Mr. Castillo-Páez' arrest and, in support of the denial, presented evidence in the form of reports from policemen on duty at the Villa El Salvador Precinct Station, and from other units involved in the October 21, 1990 operation. However, the Court considers that evidence to be insufficient to refute the statements of the aforementioned witnesses. 60. Peru's affirmation in its final arguments, supported by the document issued by the Catholic University of Peru, that Mr. Castillo-Páez had been failed in the second semester of his Sociology course and was, therefore, not a student at the time, is irrelevant in the instant case. 61. Lastly, this Tribunal is of the view that the evidence indicated above is reinforced by the decision of August 19, 1991 of the Fourteenth Criminal Court of the Lima Judicial