A.2 Notification of the reasons for the detention A.2.1) Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 148. The Commission considered that “due to the way in which the operation [during which Ms. J. was arrested] was conducted, it is reasonable to infer that Ms. J. was not given any explanation as to why she was being arrested or her rights in this situation, [because] according to Ms. J., she was not even shown the police record of the arrest.” The representative did not submit any arguments other than those indicated supra (para. 134). For its part, the State indicated that “since Ms. J. was arrested in flagrante delicto for the crime of terrorism, she cannot argue that she was unaware of the reasons for her detention.” During the public hearing, the State argued that “the first way an individual [was] informed of the reason for their arrest was verbally,” and then “they were made to sign a record where they were advised of the reasons for their detention.” A.2.2) Considerations of the Court 149. As can be inferred from paragraph 129 supra, domestic law requires that “[e]veryone shall be informed immediately and in writing of the cause or reasons for their arrest.” Similarly, Article 7(4) of the American Convention refers to two guarantees for the person who is being arrested: (i) oral or written information on the reasons for the arrest, and (ii) notification, which must be in 251 The information on the “reasons” for the arrest must be given “when this writing, of the charges. occurs,” which constitutes a mechanism to avoid illegal or arbitrary detentions at the time of the deprivation of liberty and, also, to ensure the detainee’s right of defense. 252 Furthermore, this Court has indicated that the agent who carries out the arrest must provide the information in simple language, without using technical terminology, on the facts and basic legal basis on which the arrest is based, and that the requirements of Article 7(4) of the Convention are not met by merely mentioning the legal basis. 253 Insofar as it was established in a domestic norm that was not suspended (supra paras. 129 and 132), if individuals do not receive adequate information about the reasons for their detention, including the facts and their legal basis, they do not know the charges 254 against which they must defend themselves and, furthermore, judicial control becomes illusory. If it is established that the State did not inform the victims of the “causes” or “reasons” for their detention, the detention was illegal and, consequently, contrary to Article 7(2) of the Convention; 255 additionally, it constituted a violation of the right established in Article 7(4) of this instrument. 150. Regarding the obligation to provide information on the reasons for the arrest verbally, the presumed victim has no mechanism available to enable her to prove this fact. Her allegation is of a negative nature; she indicates the inexistence of a fact. Meanwhile, the State affirms that the information on the reasons for the arrest was provided. This is an allegation of a positive nature 256 In this regard, the Court notes that, during the public hearing, and, therefore, can be proved. the prosecutor from the Public Prosecution Service indicated that she “advise[d] each person of the 257 Beyond contesting the presence of the prosecutor during the reasons for the search procedure.” 251 Cf. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico, supra, para. 106, and Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 132. 252 Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras, supra, para. 82, and Case of Yvon Neptune v. Haiti, supra, para. 107. 253 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, supra, para. 71, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico, supra, para. 105. 254 Cf. Case of Yvon Neptune v. Haiti, supra, para. 109. 255 Similarly, see, Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, supra, para. 69. 256 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, supra, para. 73. 257 Statement made by Magda Victoria Atto Mendives at the public hearing held in this case. 48