60 his arrest or detention and order his release if the arrest or detention is unlawful. In States Parties whose laws provide that anyone who believes himself to be threatened with deprivation of his liberty is entitled to recourse to a competent court in order that it may decide on the lawfulness of such threat, this remedy may not be restricted or abolished. The interested party or another person in his behalf is entitled to seek these remedies. […] 95. In consonance with the above, the second United Nations Principle for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment sets forth 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.126 96. The fourth Principle of that same international instrument, in turn, states 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 authority.127 97. This Court has stated that protection of liberty safeguards “both the physical liberty of the individual and his personal safety, in a context where the absence of guarantees may result in the subversion of the rule of law and deprive those detained of the minimum legal protection.”128 98. This Court has also stated, in connection with subparagraphs 2 and 3 of Article 7 of the Convention, regarding prohibition of unlawful or arbitrary detention or arrest, that: [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, we have a condition according to which no one shall be subject to arrest or imprisonment for causes or by methods that – although qualified as legal – may be considered incompatible regarding for the fundamental rights of the individual, because they are, among other matters, unreasonable, unforeseeable or out of proportion.129 99. The 1984 Political Constitution of Ecuador, in force when Daniel Tibi was detained, provided in Article 19(17)(h) that: [n]o one shall be deprived of his liberty except with a written order by a competent authority, in the cases, for the time, and with the formalities set forth in the law, except 126 United Nations, Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, Adopted by the General Assembly in its Resolution 43/173, of December 9, 1988, Principle 2. 127 United Nations, Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, Adopted by the General Assembly in its Resolution 43/173, of December 9, 1988, supra note 126, Principle 4. 128 See Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 8, para. 82; Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 8, para. 64; and Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez , supra note 3, para. 77. 129 See Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 8, para. 83; Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 8, para. 65; and Case of Bulacio. September 18, 2003 Judgment. Series C No. 100, para. 125.