and taken to the police station. At the time of his arrest, Mr. Acosta Martínez shouted 'they always mess with the blacks, in the understanding this was the only basis for the detention.'” 73. The representatives endorsed the Commission’s arguments, concluding that the Convention was not compatible with the body of law intended to justify the detention. They also argued that it was not only arbitrary but also discriminatory, based on the fact that the detainees were Afro-descendants and foreign nationals. 74. The State recognized that the case of José Delfín Acosta Martínez was not an isolated event, but rather “emblematic of police violence during the 90s, characterized in our country by police brutality and enforcement of the so-called 'police edicts.'” Regarding these legal provisions, in its final arguments, it specified that the edicts “established a series of vague provisions that severely punish both so-called ‘moral or political disorder’ and the personal status of individuals." It effectively accepted that the detention of José Delfín Acosta Martínez was arbitrary and illegal and that it was paradigmatic of the persecution and stigmatization of the Afro-descendant community in Argentina. B. Considerations of the Court 75. The Court has indicated that personal liberty and safety are guarantees against illegal or arbitrary detention or imprisonment. Although the State has the right and obligation to ensure safety and maintain public order, its powers are not unlimited because, at all times, it has a duty to use procedures that are in keeping with the law and respect the fundamental rights of every individual subject to its jurisdiction.126 The objective of ensuring safety and maintaining public order requires the State to legislate and to take measures of different types to prevent and regulate the conduct of its citizens, one of which is to ensure the presence of law enforcement personnel in public spaces. However, the Court observes that improper actions by such State agents in their interaction with those they should protect represents one of the main threats to the right to personal liberty, which, when it is violated, results in a risk that other rights will be violated, such as to personal integrity and, in some case, to life.127 76. The Court recalls that the essential content of Article 7 of the American Convention is the protection of the liberty of the individual against any arbitrary or illegal interference by the State.128 This article contains two types of very different regulations, one general and the other specific. The general one is included in the first paragraph: “Every person has the right to personal liberty and security.” While the specific one is composed of a series of guarantees that protect the right not to be deprived of liberty unlawfully (Article 7(2)) or arbitrarily (Article 7(3)), to be informed of the reasons for the detention and of the charges against the person detained (Article 7(4)), to judicial control of the deprivation of liberty and to the reasonableness of the length of pre-trial detention (Article 7(5)), to contest the legality of the detention (Article 7(6)) and not to be detained for debt (Article 7(7)). Any Cf. Case of Bulacio v. Argentina, supra, para. 124, and Case of Díaz Loreto et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment dated November 19, 2019. Series C No. 392, para. 90. 126 Cf. Case of Servellón García et al. v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 21, 2006. Series C No. 152, para. 87 and Case of Millacura Towers et al. v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 26, 2011. Series C No. 229, para. 70. 127 Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 84, and Case of Azul Rojas Marín et al. v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of March 12, 2020. Series C No. 402, para. 100. 128 25