12 Declaration and to render an advisory opinion relating to it whenever it is necessary to do so in interpreting those instruments.23 59. Lastly, regarding its contentious jurisdiction, “the Court generally takes into consideration the provisions of the American Declaration in its interpretation of the American Convention,”24 but [f]or the States Parties to the Convention, the specific source of their obligations with regard to the protection of human rights is, in principle, the Convention itself. It must be remembered, however, that, given the provisions of Article 29(d), these States cannot escape the obligations they have as members of the OAS under the Declaration, notwithstanding the fact that the Convention is the governing instrument for the States Parties thereto.25 60. Based on the foregoing, the Court considers that the American Declaration may be applied in the instant contentious case, if deemed appropriate, to construe the Articles of the American Convention which the Commission and the representative consider that have been violated. III ARTICLE 7 (RIGHT TO PERSONAL LIBERTY)26 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION 61. The Inter-American Commission did not allege a violation of Article 7 of the Convention to the detriment of Mr. Bueno-Alves. The related allegations were made by the alleged victim’s representative, who claimed that in the application the Commission repeated its “initial mistake regarding Report No. 101/99,” as it stated that “on April 5, 1988, Mr. Bueno-Alves and his attorney were arrested […] as instructed by Judge Cardinali, who was in charge of criminal proceeding No. 24.519.” 62. In the opinion of the representative, Judge Héctor Grieben, in charge of Magistrate’s Court No. 21, ordered the arrest of Mr. Bueno-Alves on April 5, 1988, under proceeding No. 25.314 initiated by Norma Lage. 63. According to the representative, the violation of Article 7 of the Convention was committed when Judge No. 21 (hearing the case of Lage v. Bueno-Alves et al.), after being informed that another proceeding involving the same parties and similar events was pending, failed to immediately disclose such circumstance to Judge No. 30 (hearing the case of Bueno-Alves v. Lage) and deliver the case file. Judge No. 21 continued hearing the case and ordered that the alleged victim be kept under arrest for fifteen days. 64. The State challenged the allegations of the representative. The State referred to Report No. 101/99, whereby the Commission declared the alleged violation of Article 7 of 23 Cf. Interpretation of the American Declaration of Rights and Duties of Man within the Framework of Article 64 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Advisory Opinion OC-10/89, supra note 21, para. 44. 24 Cf. Case of the Moiwana Community, Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, para. 63. 25 Cf. Interpretation of the American Declaration of Rights and Duties of Man within the Framework of Article 64 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Advisory Opinion OC-10/89, supra note 21, para. 46. 26 In that regard, Article 7 of the Convention provides that: 1. 1. Every person has the right to personal liberty and security. 2. 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. 3. No one shall be subject to arbitrary arrest or imprisonment.