A. Right to personal liberty 1. Arguments 119. The Inter-American Commission stated that “the case file reveals that the Director of Intelligence reported that, on the day of the incident, there were 11 detainees” and that the Commander of the Tenth Infantry Battalion had confirmed that “they were sent to the immigration office to be returned to their territory.” However, the Commission noted that “there is no evidence that this acknowledged detention had been recorded, or that a proceeding had been opened.” In addition, it considered that it was a violation of the right to personal liberty that the migrants who had been detained were “taken by State agents to Montecristi and then to a military prison in Dejabón, where the agents told the detainees that they must pay them in order to be returned to Haiti; otherwise, they would have to work in the fields planting bananas and rice.” 120. In addition, the Commission indicated that “there is also no proof that these people were informed of the reasons for their detention, of the charges against them, of their legal rights, that they were brought before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power, or the date of the trial, [and] even assuming that the detainees were sent to the immigration office, its officials cannot be considered judges or officials authorized by law to exercise judicial power. In addition, there is no evidence that the detainees were informed of the remedies at their disposal or that they were allowed to explain whether they were seeking asylum or the reasons why they were in Dominican territory.” Based on these considerations, the Commission asked the Court to declare that the State had violated the right to personal liberty established in Article 7 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Joseph Pierre, Selafoi Pierre, Silvie Felizor, Roland Israel, Rose Marie Dol, Josier Maxime, Rose-Marie Petit-Homme, Sonide Nora, Alphonse Oremis, Renaud Tima and Honorio Winique.174 121. The representatives agreed with the Inter-American Commission regarding the allegations of the arbitrary arrests and detentions of the Haitian survivors. They also affirmed that “international law provides that […] the restriction of the right [to personal liberty] must accord with the requirements of legality and the restrictive approach to the adoption of the measure.” 122. In addition, they stressed that the State had “failed to present any evidence establishing that, on the night of June 18, its agents proceeded to detain and arrest the victims following a court order, in application of the law. Indeed, none of the victims has been formally charged”; moreover, it does not appear from the available evidence that the presumed victims who were detained had been discovered in flagrante. In addition, they were “not granted any presumption of innocence, and the rule on exceptional detention was not respected.” They also argued that “the reasons for the arrest and detention of these persons were never indicated by the authorities who carried out the operation, or by other words, to exercise their rights with regard to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection.” In this regard, the Court reiterates that Articles 7(6), 8 and 25 of the Convention cover different spheres of protection. Specifically, “Article 7(6) of the Convention has its own legal content and the principle of effectiveness (effet utile) crosscuts the protection due to all the rights recognized in this instrument”; hence the Court considers that it is not appropriate to analyze the facts of the detention and expulsion in this case in light of Article 25 of the Convention. The alleged violation of the rights to judicial guarantees and protection will be analyzed in Chapter VII-3. 174 With regard to the injured man, Joseph Desvraine, the Commission observed that “he was not in the group of those sent to Dejabón,” because he was injured and taken to the hospital which he was able to leave. Also, the evidence in the case file shows that Michel Françoise was taken to the hospital and provided statements in the military jurisdiction in the following days. Therefore, the Commission did not have sufficient information as regards what happened to these two individuals after their transfer to the hospital and, therefore, did not refer to the rights protected by Articles 7, 8 and 25 with regard to them. 36