36 VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 7(1) (PERSONAL LIBERTY) 125 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION, IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 1(1) (OBLIGATION TO RESPECT RIGHTS) THEREOF 133. In this chapter, the Tribunal will analyze the allegations of the parties in relation to the violation of the right to personal liberty recognized in Article 7 of the Convention. 134. The Commission alleged that “the judgment of 5 years and 6 months in prison imposed on Mr. Usón Ramírez for exercising his right to freedom of thought and expression, […] violated his right to personal liberty established in Articles 7(1) and 7(3) of the American Convention.” Additionally, the Commission indicated “that at the moment of his detention on May 22, 2004, […] Mr. Usón was not informed of the reasons [of the same]. It also alleged that “in the order of May 21, 2004, which gave rise to [Mr. Usón´s preventive detention], the [t]ribunal limited itself to mentioning ‘the existence of flight risk,’ without a single reference to the elements that domestic law required so that Mr. Usón´s deprivation of liberty would be admissible, and without duly explaining the reasons for the alleged flight risk. […] This situation repeated itself, for example, in the decisions of May 24, 2004, May 27, 2004, and June 15, 2004.” According to the Commission, this occurred even though “Mr. Usón´s defense submitted documents to the [t]ribunal with the purpose of proving the existence of circumstances that, according to the law, would excuse Mr. Usón from the imposition of that measure.” 135. The representatives alleged that “[in this case, Article 7] of the Convention was violated in all its parts”. In this regard, they indicated that the “presumption [of innocence] was not duly respected when the burden of the proof was inverted, placing an excessive burden on the accused to show that there was no danger of escape and, therefore, he could be tried in liberty.” According to the representatives, “the position taken by the Attorney and the military tribunals participating in this case, since they lacked the necessary impartiality, or did not offer any guarantees[,] as well as the lack of motivation of the resolutions denying Francisco Usón’s liberty [and] the lack of decision by the tribunal vis-àvis some pleadings submitted by the defense […] suggest lack of impartiality from the judge, who considered him guilty right from the beginning, violating the principle of presumption of innocence”. As regards unlawfulness, they pointed out that “[although] [Article 250] of the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure exceptionally allows for the deprivation of liberty of the person who has been charged with a crime, exercising such power is subject to the occurrence of several operational circumstances that did not occur in this case and whose absence made Francisco Usón’s detention illegal.” Furthermore, the representatives alleged that his detention was arbitrary because: i) the purpose of his detention was to persecute and punish him as a political opponent to the Government ii) the “arbitrary nature of his detention is shown in the writ by the Military Attorney requesting the detention [of Mr. Usón], where he is not telling the truth when affirming that Francisco Usón seems to have pointed out that the soldiers of Fuerte Mara ‘were burnt by the flamethrower’”; iii) the Military Control Court of La Guaira declared its incompetence to hear in any criminal investigation against Francisco Usón[ and, however] such court did not decide [his] liberty […], as would have been logical if such tribunal was not competent to hear in this case”. 136. In turn, the State pointed out that the deprivation of liberty of Mr. Usón Ramírez took place strictly in accordance with the domestic legislation which, on the one hand, 125 Article 7(1) of the American Convention states that: Every person has the right to personal liberty and security.