112. In the cases of Belkis González, María Angélica González and Fernando González, the intervening police also referred to Article 71 of the CCP. That provision, as has already been mentioned (supra para. 31), empowered the “seizure” of persons within the framework of “summary” actions leading to “the discovery” of the perpetrator of […] punishable actions.” Notwithstanding the interpretation and determination of the scope of the article, the Court observes that, in any case, Article 60 of the Constitution of Venezuela in force at the moment of the events required that the detentions ordered by the police occur in cases of “necessity and urgency” and when they are “essential” to investigate a punishable act. The actions of the police that account for the detention of Fernando González do not appear to demonstrate that those requirements were complied with.133 113. Therefore, the Court concludes that the initial acts of detention of Belkis González, María Angélica González, Fernando González, Wilmer Antonio Barliza González, Luis Guillermo González and Olimpiades González were unlawful. The State, to their detriment, violated Article 7(1) and (2) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. B.2 Preventive deprivations of liberty 114. In view of the foregoing, (supra paras. 98 to 100), in order that a measure of the preventive deprivation of liberty not be arbitrary and that it be compatible with Article 7(3) of the Convention, it must observe several conditions: that it is substantiated not only on indicia of criminal responsibility, but it is also justified by legitimate purposes compatible with the treaty; that it seek that the accused will not obstruct the proceedings nor evade justice. The measure must also, among other conditions, be subject to periodic review. 115. After the police ordered the deprivations of liberty of Fernando González, María Angélica González and Belkis González on November 23, 1998, the first two filed before the judicial authority on December 2, 1998 a request that alternative measures of the deprivation of liberty be ordered in their favor. Then, on January 29, 1999 the police ordered the deprivation of liberty of Luis Guillermo González, Wilmer Antonio Barliza and Olimpiades González, and they, on February 5, 1999, requested the judicial authority that they be granted alternative measures. The judicial body confirmed, on December 10, 1998 and February 12, 1999, the deprivation of liberty of Belkis González, María Angélica González and Fernando González, in the first case, and of Luis Guillermo González, Wilmer Antonio Barliza and Olimpiades González, in the second. In both cases, the decision was taken in the belief that there were “indicia that showed the criminal responsibility” of those persons, and on the basis of the provisions of Article 182 of the CCP. 116. The relevant parts of Article 182, in force at the time of the events, indicated that: “provided that it is fully proved that there has been committed a punishable act State also referred to Article 46 of the Law of Amparo. In view of the conclusion on the illegality of the detentions, it is not necessary to examine whether those articles were observed. In view of this conclusion, it is not necessary to analyze whether Article 75 of the former Procedural Code, indicated by the intervening authorities in their actions relating to the detention, was obeyed (supra paras. 31 and 35). Nor is it necessary to analyze compliance of Article 46 of the Law of Amparo, mentioned by the State (supra paras. 30 and 89). 133 31