34 105. The Tribunal has previously highlighted that, in relation with Article 7(5) of the Convention, the judge is responsible for guaranteeing the rights of the detained person, authorizing the adoption of precautionary or coercive measures when strictly necessary and, in general, ensuring that the accused is treated in a manner in keeping with the presumption of innocence,96 as a guarantee that tends to avoid arbitrariness or illegality of the detentions,97 as well as guaranteeing the right to life and humane treatment.98 106. In previous cases, the Tribunal has referred to, among other things, deprivation of liberty ordered within the framework of criminal proceedings before ordinary99 or military forums,100 as a precautionary and punitive measure,101 to collective and programmed arrests,102 and to those carried out outside the law, which constituted the first act to perpetrate an extra-legal execution103 or an enforced disappearance.104 In the instant case, it is worth mentioning that the holder of the rights is a foreign person, who was arrested due to the fact that he was not authorized to enter into and stay in Panama according to the laws of the State. That is to say, the measures restricting the personal liberty applied to Mr. Vélez Loor were not related to the commission of a criminal crime, but responded to an irregular immigration status for having entered Panama through an unauthorized area, without the necessary documents and in violation of a prior deportation order. Likewise, the Court deems appropriate to indicate that it does not appear from the evidence and arguments of the parties that Mr. Vélez Loor had requested international protection,105 nor that he demonstrated another status regarding which other fields of international law could then apply as lex specialis. 96 Cf. Case of Tibi, supra note 27, para. 114; Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206, paras. 119 a 121, and Case of Bayarri, supra note 27, para. 63. 97 Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 83; Case of Bayarri, supra note 27, para. 63, and Case of Yvon Neptune v. Haití. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 180, para. 107. 98 Cf. Case of Tibi, supra note 27, para. 118; Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 87, and Case of Palamara Iribarne, supra note 100, para. 221. 99 Cf. Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Perú. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, paras. 115 and 134; Case of Yvon Neptune, supra note 97, para. 100, and Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, paras. 66, 73, 86, and 87. 100 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo, supra note 59, para. 61; Case of Usón Ramírez, supra note 10, para. 148, and Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, paras. 195 and 228. 101 Cf. Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Merits. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, paras. 70, 74, and 75; Case of Barreto Leiva, supra note 96, paras. 121 to 123, and Case of Bayarri, supra note 27, paras. 75 to 77. 102 Cf. Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 38, and Case of Servellón García, supra note 48, para. 96. 103 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.), supra note 24, paras. 132 and 143; Case of Escué Zapata v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 165, para. 86, and Case of La Cantuta v. Perú. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 109. 104 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 51, para. 186; Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 25, 2010. Series C No. 212, para. 121, and Case of Anzualdo Castro, supra note 60, para. 79. 105 Included in this statement the Statute on Refugees pursuant to the pertinent instruments of the United Nations and the corresponding domestic laws, and territorial asylum pursuant to the various InterAmerican conventions on the matter.