56 repeal of said norm; therefore, currently, the penalty of imprisonment for those aliens who repeat the same offense of violating the orders for deportation is revoked. 187. The State furnished some rulings of the Supreme Court of Justice of Panama in which it ruled on the legality of ordering a measure as the one applied to Mr. Vélez Loor.196 Nevertheless, the Court deems that the application of an administrative penalty or sanction, materially different to the one provided in the law, is in breach of the principle of freedom from ex post facto laws, given that it is based on extensive interpretations of criminal law. In the instant case, the Court notes that the National Office of Immigration did not provide any reasoning in its Order 7306 regarding the grounds for the application of a penalty in a facility that was not the one stipulated in said norm. Regarding the compatibility of placing migrants together with individuals who had been accused and convicted for criminal crimes with international obligations, see infra (paras. 206 to 210). 188. Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court considers that the application of a heavier sanction than the one stipulated in Article 67 of Decree Law 16 of 1960 infringes the principle of legality and, hence, is in breach of Article 9 of the Convention, in conjunction with Articles 1(1) therein, to the detriment of Mr. Vélez Loor. i) Conclusion 189. The parties have put forward arguments regarding Article 7 of the American Convention, regarding its different subparagraphs. The Commission and the State agreed on, based on the jurisprudence of the Court, that any violation of subparagraphs 2 to 7 of Article 7 of the Convention necessarily entails the violation of Article 7(1) thereof, because failure to respect the guarantees of the person deprived of liberty leads to the lack of protection of that person’s right to liberty. 190. In this respect, the Court has already noted that said norm establishes a general regulation and a specific regulation that is composed of a series of guarantees. In fact, Article 7(1) of the American Convention provides, in general terms, that “[e]very person has the right to personal liberty and security.” Even though this right may be exercised in many ways, the American Convention regulates “the limits or restrictions that the State may impose,” by means of different guarantees established in the different subparagraphs of said norm, which must be provided when depriving a person of their liberty.197 These subparagraphs protect the right: i) to not to be deprived of liberty unlawfully (Art. 7)(2)) or in an arbitrary manner (Art. 7(3)); ii) to be informed of the reasons for the detention and the charges brought against him (Art. 7(4)); iii) the judicial control of the deprivation of liberty and the reasonable length of time of the remand in custody (Art. 7(5)); iv) to 196 Cf. Judgment of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Justice. Writ of Habeas Corpus in favor of Jorge Perlaza Royo and against attorney Eric Singares and attorney Rosabel Vergara, Director and Deputy Director of the National Office of Immigration and Naturalization. Magistrate: Arturo Hoyos. Panamá, Twelve (12) of January of two thousand and one (2001) (case file of the evidence, tome X, annex 16 to the final arguments of the State, folios 4055 to 4060); Judgment of the full court of the Supreme Court of Justice. Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by attorney Magaly Castillo, in favor of Vicente Limones, against the National Director of Immigration and Naturalization. Magistrate: Mirtza Angélica Franceschi de Aguilera. Panamá, twenty-fifth (25) of July two thousand and one (2001) (case file of the evidence, tome X, annex 17 to the final arguments of the State, folios 4061 to 4066); Judgment of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Justice. Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Attorney Anda j. jurado Zamora, in favor of Guillermo Goicochea against the National Director of Immigration Office. Magistrate: jasé A. Troyano. Panamá, Thirtieth (30) of April two thousand and one (2001) (case file of the evidence, tome X, annex 19 to the final arguments of the State, folios 4073 to 4077), Judgment of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Justice. Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by attorney Víctor Orobio in favor of jairo González and against the National Direction of the Office of Migration and Naturalization of the Ministry of the Interior and Justice. Magistrate: Rogelio Fábrega Z. Panamá, Fourteenth (14) of February two thousand and one (2001) (case file of the evidence, tome X, annex 20 to the final arguments of the State, folios 4078 to 4083). 197 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez, supra note 99, para. 53.