36 156. As for Article 7(3) of the American Convention, the Court has held that “no one may be subjected to arrest or imprisonment for reasons and by methods which, although classified as legal, could be deemed to be incompatible with the respect for the fundamental rights of the individual because, among other things, they are 118 unreasonable, unforeseeable or lacking in proportionality.” When addressing the arbitrary nature of a detention, the Court has reaffirmed that “arbitrariness" is not to be equated with "against the law", but must be interpreted more broadly to include elements of inappropriateness, injustice, lack of predictability and due process 119 of law.” 157. Specifically on the subject of subparagraphs 2 and 3 of Convention Article 7, the Court has written the following [a]ccording to the first of these regulatory provisions [Article 7(2) of the Convention], no one shall be deprived of his personal liberty except for reasons, cases or circumstances specifically established by law (material aspect) but, also, under strict conditions established beforehand by law (formal aspect). In the second provision [Article 7(2) of the Convention], we have a condition according to which no one shall be subject to arrest or imprisonment for causes or methods that – although qualified as legal – may be considered incompatible with respect for the fundamental rights of the individual, because they are, among 120 other matters, unreasonable, unforeseeable or out of proportion. 158. The United Nations’ Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment provides that “[a]rrest, detention or imprisonment shall only be carried out strictly in accordance with the provisions of the law and by competent officials or persons authorized for that purpose” and that “[a]ny form of detention or imprisonment and all measures affecting the human rights of a person under any form of detention or imprisonment shall be ordered by, or be subject to the effective control of, a judicial or other 121 authority.” 159. The Commission notes that at the time of the events in this case, Decree 25,475 of May 5, 1992 was in effect. A law on the crime of terrorism, its Article 12(c) provided that a person suspected of being involved in the crime of terrorism could be held in detention on remand for a period of no more than 15 calendar days, and 122 the public prosecutor and criminal judge were to be advised within 24 hours. 160. The Final Report of Peru’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission points out that under the 1993 Political Constitution, a person may only be constitutionally detained if one of two conditions is present: a court order has been issued or the person is caught in flagrante. These two conditions, which are the general maxims within the rule of law, were bent when a state of emergency was decreed under the authority of the Constitution, 123 in that the right to personal liberty was suspended or restricted. The Final Report of the Truth and 118 I/A Court H.R., Case of Gangaram Panday v. Suriname. Judgment of January 21, 1994. Series C No. 16, paragraph 47; and I/A Court H.R., Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, paragraph 66. 119 I/A Court H.R.. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, paragraph 92. 120 I/A Court H.R. Case of Acosta Calderón. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, paragraph 57; I/A Court H.R., Case of Tibi. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, paragraph 98; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, paragraph 83. 121 UN, Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in its resolution 43/173, December 9, 1988, principles 2 and 4, respectively.. 122 See, in general, I/A Court H.R. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, paragraph 73. 123 Final Report of Peru’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, VOLUME VI, Section four: crimes and human rights violations, Chapter 1: Patterns in the perpetration of crimes and human rights violations, 1.6 Violation of Due Process, 1.6.6 State of emergency, unlawful detentions and petitions for relief, p. 468.