33 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 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. No one shall be subject to arbitrary arrest or imprisonment. Anyone who is detained shall be informed of the reasons for his detention and shall be promptly notified of the charge or charges against him. Any person detained shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to be released without prejudice to the continuation of the proceedings. His release may be subject to guarantees to assure his appearance for trial. Anyone who is deprived of his liberty shall be entitled to recourse to a competent court, in order that the court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his arrest or detention and order his release if the arrest or detention is unlawful. In States Parties whose laws provide that anyone who believes himself to be threatened with deprivation of his liberty is entitled to recourse to a competent court in order that it may decide on the lawfulness of such threat, this remedy may not be restricted or abolished. The interested party or another person in his behalf is entitled to seek these remedies. 154. The Inter-American Court has ruled that in accordance with Article 7.1 of the Convention, the protection of liberty safeguards “both the physical liberty of the individual and his personal safety, in a context where the absence of guarantees may result in the subversion of the rule of law and deprive 142 those arrested of the minimum legal protection.” 143 155. According to the legal precedents set by the Inter-American Court, the analysis of an arrest and its compatibility with Articles 7.2 and 7.3 of the American Convention requires, first, determining the legality of the detention from a material and formal standpoint, which entails identifying whether it is compatible with the domestic legislation of the State in question. The second step involves the analysis of those domestic provisions within the context of the guarantees established by the American Convention, in order to determine whether they are arbitrary. Finally, if the detention meets the requirements of a domestic legal provision that is compatible with the American Convention, it should be determined whether the application of this law in this specific case was arbitrary. 156. The 1979 Constitution of Peru, in force as of Gladys Carol Espinoza’s arrest on April 17, 1993, provided, in Article 20.g, that “no person may be arrested other than under a written, grounded 144 order from a judge or by police authorities in flagrante delicto.” Similar language was used in Article 145 2.24.f of the 1993 Constitution, which came into force on January 1, 1994. 157. As has been established, Gladys Carol Espinoza was detained by agents of the DIVISE in the absence of a court order and without any evidence to indicate she was committing a crime in flagrante. That was in breach of the terms of the Constitution in force at the time and in violation of the guarantees enshrined in Articles 7.2 and 7.3 of the American Convention. 158. The IACHR has established that Gladys Carol Espinoza’s arrest involved physical blows, insults, and threats, which continued as she was taken to the offices of the DIVISE in the city of Lima. It 142 I/A Court H. R., Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico, Judgment of November 26, 2010, Series C No. 220, para. 80; Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas, Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, para. 104; Case of Acosta Calderón, Judgment of June 24, 2005, Series C No. 129, para. 56; Case of Tibi, Judgment of September 7, 2004, Series C No. 114, para. 97; and Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, Judgment of July 8, 2004, Series C No. 110, para. 82. 143 See: I/A Court H. R., Bámaca Velásquez Case, Judgment of November 25, 2000, Series C No. 70, para. 139; Durand and Ugarte Case, Judgment of August 16, 2000, Series C No. 68, para. 85; The “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.), Judgment of November 19, 1999, Series C No. 63, para. 131; Suárez Rosero Case, Judgment of November 12, 1997, Series C No. 35, para. 43; Gangaram Panday Case, Judgment of January 21, 1994, Series C No. 16, paras. 45 to 51. 144 Constitution of the Republic of Peru of July 12, 1979, available on the web site of the Congress of the Republic of Peru: www.congreso.gob.pe/ntley/ConstitucionP.htm. 145 1993 Constitution of Peru, available on the web site of the Congress of the Republic of Peru: www.congreso.gob.pe/ntley/ConstitucionP.htm.