the right to personal liberty can only be affected by a law.102 This legal exception must be accompanied by the principle of the legal classification (tipicidad) of the law, which obliges the State to establish, as specifically as possible and “beforehand,” the “justifications” and “conditions” for the deprivation of physical liberty. It also requires that its application be strictly subjected to the procedures objectively defined by law.103 Thus, Article 7 automatically remits to the domestic norms. Any requirement in the domestic law that is not complied with when depriving a person of his or her liberty will result in that deprivation being unlawful and contrary to the Convention.104 78. The Commission and the representative assert that the pre-trial detention of Mr. Romero Feris extended beyond the period fixed both by domestic law and by the judicial decisions that ordered it. Reference, therefore, should first be made to the norms existing at the time of the facts. Article 1 of Law N° 24,390, the norm that the First Magistrate employed to assess the need to prolong the precautionary measures, establishes that “pre-trial detention shall not exceed two years. However, when the number of offenses attributed to the accused or the apparent complexity of the case prevents the issuance of a decision within the time limit indicated, this may be extended for one additional year, by a reasoned decision, which shall immediately be notified to the relevant appeals court for appropriate control.” 79. Mr. Romero Feris was detained on August 3, 1999 and his defense counsel requested, in mid-2001, the First Magistrate to order his release. This request was rejected on August 1, 2001 and, pursuant to the aforementioned Article 1, the detention was extended for eight months, from August 4 of the same year. The alleged victim was finally released on September 11, 2002 (supra paras. 21 to 23). 80. As to the arguments of the Commission and of the representative on the lawfulness of the pre-trial detention, the Court notes that the eight months extension is in accordance with the periods established by the domestic legislation, which allows extensions for up to one year. Although the alleged victim should have been released on April 4, 2002, his release did not occur until September 11 of that year. Thus, the deprivation of liberty exceeded by five months and eight days that which was ordered by the Examining Magistrate, which the Court deems contrary to Article 7(2) of the Convention. 81. It should be recalled that the domestic judges arrived at similar conclusions with respect to the duration of the precautionary measure. The First Magistrate indicated in his resolution of September 3, 2002 that “in effect, abiding by the standards established in that law, I opportunely resolved to extend by eight months the pre-trial detention of [Mr. Romero Feris], which has now elapsed […]. Since [he] was detained on 02/08/99, the three (3) years alluded to have ended, and, therefore, his release must be ordered.”105 Similarly, on September 10, 2002, the First Criminal Chamber stated that “in accordance with what has been stated and calculating the extension […] from August 4, 2001, as of today the maximum period of detention would have ended with an excess of time and, therefore, Raúl Rolando Romero Feris must be released.”106 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, para. 55 and Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2010. Series C No. 218, footnote 178. 102 Cf. Case of Pollo Rivera et al. v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 21, 2016. Series C No. 319, para. 98 and Case of Gangaram Panday v. Suriname. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 21, 1994. Series C No. 16, para. 47. 103 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, para. 57 and Case of the Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 27, 2014. Series C No. 281, para. 158. 104 105 First Judge of Instruction, Resolution Nº 1023 of September 3, 2002 (evidence file, f. 351). 106 First Criminal Chamber, Resolution Nº 581 of September 10, 2002 (evidence file, f. 356). 15