decision on the lawfulness of the arrest or detention.210 To the contrary, the judicial activity would not signify a true control, but rather a merely formal or even symbolic procedure resulting in an impairment of the individual’s freedom. Furthermore, an analysis of the lawfulness of a deprivation of liberty “should examine the reasons invoked by the plaintiff and specifically express an opinion on them, pursuant to the standards established by the American Convention.”211 141. As already described (supra para. 88), among the measures taken against Carlos Enrique Castro Ramírez, Alfredo Bazán y Rosas, Víctor Manuel Boggiano Bruzzón, Genaro Ahuacho Luna, Mercedes Valencia Chuquimia, Victoria Gutiérrez Aguilar de Lulleman, Blas Valencia Campos, Oswaldo Lulleman Antezana, Claudia Valencia Alarcón, F.E.P.M., Norma Lupe Alarcón de Valencia, Carlos Cruz Añez, Elacio Peña Córdova, Freddy Cáceres and Patricia Gallardo Ardúz, on December 19, 2001, the Eighth Criminal Investigation Court held a public hearing on precautionary measures in relation to the alleged crimes of murder, aggravated robbery, criminal association and manufacture of explosive substances.212 142. The record of the hearing reveals that at least three public defenders argued that the raids had been unlawful and that the police had used unnecessary and excessive force.213 In response to these arguments, the judge indicated: “I would kindly ask counsel to merely present the defense in relation to the precautionary measures.”214 Also, in the reasoned order requiring pretrial detention, although the court referred to the arguments of the defense lawyers concerning the violation of their clients’ constitutional rights and guarantees, it took no decision in this regard.215 143. Based on the above, this Court finds that, in the instant case, the remedy that existed to verify the lawfulness of the precautionary measure was neither appropriate nor effective, because the judge did not analyze the lawfulness of the raids, and failed to rule on the arguments concerning their arbitrariness or on the alleged actions of the law enforcement agencies. Consequently, the Court concludes that the State violated Article 7(6) of the Convention to the detriment of Genaro Ahuacho Luna, Norma Lupe Alarcón de Valencia, Alfredo Bazán y Rosas, Víctor Manuel Boggiano Bruzzón, Freddy Cáceres, Carlos Enrique Castro Ramírez, Carlos Cruz Añez, Patricia Gallardo Ardúz, Victoria Gutiérrez Aguilar de Lulleman, Oswaldo Lulleman Antezana, Elacio Peña Córdova, F.E.P.M., Claudia Valencia Alarcón, Blas Valencia Campos and Mercedes Valencia Chuquimia. B.1.5. Conclusions with regard to the right to personal liberty 144. Based on the foregoing, the Court declares that the State violated the right to personal liberty recognized in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Article 7 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Genaro Ahuacho Luna; Norma Lupe Alarcón Cf. Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 96, and Case of Villarroel Merino et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 110. 210 211 Cf. Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras, supra, para. 96 and Case of Villarroel Merino et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 110. Cf. Record of public hearing on precautionary measures issued by the Eighth Criminal Investigation Court on December 19, 2001 (evidence file, folio 1764). The record also mentions an additional defendant who is not one of the alleged victims in this case. 212 Cf. Record of public hearing on precautionary measures issued by the Eighth Criminal Investigation Court on December 19, 2001 (evidence file, folios 1766, 1767 and 1769). 213 Record of public hearing on precautionary measures issued by the Eighth Criminal Investigation Court on December 19, 2001 (evidence file, folio 1767). 214 215 Cf. Resolution No. 189/2001 issued by the Eighth Criminal Investigation Court on December 19, 2001 (evidence file, folio 1773). 42