40 when depriving a person of his liberty shall make such deprivation unlawful and against the American Convention.144 146. With respect to Article 7(3) of the Convention, the Court has previously established that no one shall be detained or encarcerated for reasons or by means – which though they may be legal – could be construed as being incompatible with fundamental human rights, thus being, inter alia, unreasonable, unforseeable, and unproportional.145 147. To that end, this Court has established that, in the light of article 7(4) of the American Convention, the information about the motives and reasons” for detention shall be provided “once it occurs,” which “is a mechanism to avoid unlawful or arbitrary detentions from the very moment that the person is deprived of his liberty and, in turn, iensures the right to defense of the individual.”146 Moreover, this Court has pointed out that, “there is noncompliance with article 7(4) of the Convention if only the legal basis is mentioned.”147 148. In the preceding chapter, this Court concluded that the tribunal that tried Mr. Usón Ramírez lacked jurisdiction and impartiality, essential prerequisites to due process. The effects of this situation are projected to all of the proceeding, rendering it defective from the beginning, and to the consequences derived from it. In that regard, any act of a tribunal that manifestly lacks competence that results in a restriction or deprivation of personal liberty, such as those that occurred in the present case to the detriment of Mr. Usón Ramírez, lead to the consequent violation of Article 7(1) of the American Convention 149. As a consequence, the Court considers that in the present case, and distinct from its considerations in other cases that have come before it, an analysis regarding the Convention’s parameters of legality, no arbitrariness, motivation, possibility to challenge the decision, reasonable time, or those issues regarding respect to the presumption of innocence in relation to preventive detention, is unnecessary. 150. Therefore, the Court concludes that the State violated article 7(1) of the Convention in relation to article 1(1) of the same, to the detriment of Mr. Usón Ramírez. IX NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE 2148 (DUTY TO ADOPT PROVISIONS OF DOMESTIC LAW) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION 144 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez, supra note 56, para. 57; Case of Bayarri, supra note 43, para. 54, and Case of Yvon Neptune, supra note 46, para. 96. 145 Cf. Case of Gangaram Panday v. Suriname. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of January 21, 1994. Series C No. 16, para. 47; Case of Yvon Neptune, supra note 46, para. 97, and Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez, supra note 56, para. 90. 146 Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 82; Case of Yvon Neptune, supra note 46, para. 105, and Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez, supra note 56, para 70. 147 Case of Yvon Neptune, supra note 46, para. 106 and Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez, supra note 56, para. 71. 148 Article 2 of the Convention states: Where the exercise of any of the rights or freedoms referred to in Article 1 is not already ensured by legislative or other provisions, the States Parties undertake to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional processes and the provisions of this Convention, such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to those rights or freedoms.