the State. 190 It has stated that this article has two types of regulations that are well differentiated from each other, one general and the other specific. The general is found in the first numeral: "[e]very person has the right to personal liberty and security." While the specific one is made up of a series of guarantees that protect the right not to be unlawfully deprived of liberty (article 7(2)) or arbitrarily (article 7(3)), to know the reasons for the detention and the charges filed against the detainee (article 7(4)), to judicial control of the deprivation of liberty and the reasonableness of the period of preventive detention (article 7(5)), to challenge the legality of the detention (article 7(6)) and not to be detained for debts (article 7(7)). 191 Any violation of numerals 2 to 7 of Article 7 of the Convention will necessarily entail the violation of article 7(1) thereof. 192 131. In this case, the Court confirms that the presumed victims were subject to criminal proceedings from March 21, 2011, the date on which the then President filed a complaint before the Fifteenth Court, until February 28, 2012, on which the National Court accepted the pardon granted by the then President. Similarly, the Court recalls that the alleged victims were sentenced on July 20, 2011, in the first instance, to three years in prison and the payment of USD $30,000,000 (thirty million United States dollars) jointly and severally. This decision would later be confirmed by the decision of the Provincial Court of September 22, 2011, where the motions for annulment and appeal filed by the alleged victims were rejected. 132. The Court notes that, throughout this process, the alleged victims were subject to the requirements of the criminal process, which included attending the hearings during the first instance trial, and during the annulment and appeal process, as well as being available for the different actions that occurred throughout that period. Furthermore, that, in effect, they suffered the anguish of the possible depravation of their liberty from the moment the first instance conviction was handed down, and even more so from the moment it was confirmed by the Provincial Court. However, the Court notes that the alleged victims were never effectively deprived of their liberty during the process and after the sentence was handed down, and that they were granted a pardon that eliminated the legal possibility of being detained in relation to said process. 133. Thus, the Court notes that the restrictions on the personal liberty of the alleged victims due to the actions they had to carry out during the trial against them are inherent to the existence of a criminal proceeding, and therefore they did not constitute a limitation that violates the right to freedom of expression under the terms of Article 7 of the Convention. In addition, the Court notes that the mere existence of the criminal conviction against the alleged victims did not constitute a restriction on their personal liberty, since it was not carried out and because the then President granted a pardon that extinguished the sentence. 193 Consequently, the Court concludes that the State is not responsible for the violation of Article 7(2) of the Convention, to the detriment of Cf. Case of "Instituto de Reeducación del Menor" v. Paraguay. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, par. 223, and Case of González et al. v. Venezuela. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of September 20, 2021. Series C No. 436, par. 94. 190 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, par. 51, and Case of Guerrero, Molina et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 3, 2021. Series C No. 424, par. 103. 191 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, supra, par. 54, and Case of Jenkins v. Argentina. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2019. Series C No. 397, par. 71. 192 193 Cf. Expert report of Juan Pablo Albán (Merits File, folio 1562). 44