32 the judicial process would have been frustrated both by the flight and by the failure of the applicants to appear. It also stated that the pretrial detention had come under regular review when the applicants were ordered to be released in August, 1987 “as a consequence of the September, 1984 entry into force of the [American Convention].” 112. The State then discussed the question of whether the amount of time they were held was reasonable and emphasized that the conduct of the applicants was sufficient justification to prolong the pretrial detention. It also claimed that the analysis should not include those applicants whose precautionary measure had been applied before the Convention went into effect, but consider only the pretrial detention that occurred after the date of ratification of the American Convention. In view of all this, the State assured that the amount of time was reasonable, considering the complexity of the case and the conduct of the applicants. The State then spoke on the alleged conversion of pretrial detention into a prison sentence, noting that “all the applicants were convicted of the crime of military fraud in the first trial, under military justice, and in the second and third trials through the federal courts and the Supreme Court.” They therefore asked the Court to declare that article 7 of the Convention had not been breached. B. Considerations of the Court 113. Before beginning its analysis of this particular case, the Court would emphasize that Mr. Allendes and Mr. López Mattheus were released on September 8, 1981 (supra par. 74), and consequently, the Court is not competent to examine their arrest warrants or pretrial detention. Moreover, in keeping with the decision made under the preliminary objection ratione temporis, the Court is not competent to hold that the American Convention has been violated for the events that took place prior to the State’s recognition of its jurisdiction (supra par. 28). The Court therefore has no jurisdiction to examine the alleged illegal or arbitrary nature of the arrest warrants or the orders for pretrial detention of the alleged victims that took place in September and October 1980, but only during the period of pretrial detention as of September 5, 1984. 114. The Court has noted that the essence of article 7 of the American Convention 119 is the protection of the liberty of the individual from arbitrary or unlawful interference by the State.120 This Court recalls that article 7 of the American Convention contains two distinct types of regulations: one general, the other specific. The general one is found in the first 119 Article 7. Right to Personal Liberty 1. Every person has the right to personal liberty and security. 2. 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. 3. No one shall be subject to arbitrary arrest or imprisonment. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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.[…] 120 Cfr. Case of "Juvenile Reeducation Institute" v. Paraguay. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, par. 223; and Case of Torres Millacura et al. v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 26, 2011. Series C No. 229, par. 76.