Convention permits the suspension of the obligations that it establishes “to the extent and for the period of time strictly required by the exigencies of the situation” in question, and provided that “such measures are not inconsistent with its other obligations under international law and do not involve [any] discrimination.” Thus, in the Court’s opinion, this means that, pursuant to the 219 the said prerogative must also be exercised and provisions of Article 29(a) of the Convention, interpreted exceptionally and restrictively. Moreover, Article 27(3) establishes the obligation of the State to “immediately inform the other States Parties, through the Secretary General of the Organization of American States, of the provisions whose application it has suspended, the reasons that gave rise to the suspension, and the date set for the termination of such suspension.” In the instant case, there is no record that the State complied with this obligation. A) Rights to personal liberty and to protection of the home 125. In this section, the Court will analyze separately each of the arguments presented by the parties and the Commission in relation to the right to personal liberty and to protection of the home. The Court recalls that Article 7 of the American Convention contains two distinct types of regulations, one general and other specific. The general one is found in the first paragraph: “[e]very person has the right to personal liberty and security.” While, the specific one is composed of a series of guarantees that protect the right not to be deprived of liberty illegally (Article 7(2)) or arbitrarily (Article 7(3)), to be informed of the reasons for his detention and to be notified of the charges against him (Article 7(4)), to judicial control of the deprivation of liberty (Article 7(5)), and to 220 Any violation of paragraphs 2 to 7 of Article 7 contest the legality of the detention (Article 7(6)). 221 of the Convention necessarily entails the violation of Article 7(1) of this instrument. 126. Article 7(2) of the American Convention establishes that “No one shall be deprived of his physical liberty except for the reasons and under the conditions established beforehand by the constitution of the State Party concerned or by a law established pursuant thereto.” This Court has indicated that when referring back to the Constitution and the laws established “pursuant thereto,” analysis of the observance of Article 7(2) of the Convention entails the examination, as specifically as possible, of compliance with the requirements established “beforehand” in the said laws in relation to the “reasons” and “conditions” for the deprivation of physical liberty. If the substantive and formal aspects of the domestic laws are not observed when depriving a person of his liberty, 222 in light of Article 7(2). this deprivation will be illegal and contrary to the American Convention 127. Furthermore, with regard to the arbitrariness referred to in Article 7(3) of the Convention, the Court has established that no one can be subjected to detention or imprisonment for reasons and by means that – even though they are categorized as legal – may be considered incompatible with respect for the fundamental rights of the individual, because they are, among other factors, the other States Parties, through the Secretary General of the Organization of American States, of the provisions the application of which it has suspended, the reasons that gave rise to the suspension, and the date set for the termination of such suspension.” 219 The relevant part of Article 29 of the Convention stipulates that: “[n]o provision of this Convention shall be interpreted as: (a) permitting any State Party, group, or person to suppress the enjoyment or exercise of the rights and freedoms recognized in this Convention or to restrict them to a greater extent than is provided for herein.” 220 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, supra, para. 51, and Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 125. 221 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, supra, para. 54, and Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 125. 222 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, supra, para. 57; Case of Yvon Neptune Haiti. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 180, para. 96; Case of Bayarri v. Argentina. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 30, 2008. Series C No. 187, para. 54, and Case of Torres Millacura et al. v. Argentina, supra. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 26, 2011. Series C No. 229, para. 74. 40