37 Convention”. Lastly the Commission stated that “when there is a hypothetical conflict between laws, the one which is most favorable to the fundamental right in question should be applied and, when there is a doubt, it should also be in favor of the right to liberty because liberty is the ´prius´ of law”. 138. In its final arguments, the State repeated that Gustavo Cesti Hurtado, as any person prosecuted under military jurisdiction, could have opted for presenting a jurisdictional dispute or requested provisional liberty. Moreover, it stated that the habeas corpus recourse was not appropriate, since “it derives from the very nature of the protective measure that if a parallel action might be effective and the procedure is not so overlong that it would be ineffective for the plaintiff, he should have recourse to the latter, because the nature of the protective measure is that it is the final legal recourse against arbitrariness”. Moreover, the State argued that the Public Law Chamber’s order to liberate Gustavo Cesti Hurtado and suspend the proceeding against him could not be executed because, when this order was adopted, on the one hand, Gustavo Cesti Hurtado “had not put his affairs in order” and, on the other, there was no proceeding to suspend, because Gustavo Cesti Hurtado was not detained and thus there was no “corpus” to bring before the Public Law Chamber. 139. 140. Article 7(1), (2) and (3) of the American Convention establishes that 1. Every person has the right to personal liberty and security. 2. No one shall be deprived of his physical liberty except for the reasons and under the conditions established beforehand by the constitution of the State Party concerned or by a law established pursuant thereto. 3. No one shall be subject to arbitrary arrest or imprisonment. The Court has said that no person may be deprived of his or her personal freedom except for reasons, cases or circumstances expressly defined by law (material aspect) and, furthermore, subject to strict adherence to the procedures objectively set forth in that law (formal aspect)31. 141. In addition to the considerations already set forth in this judgment (supra 123 to 133), on the alleged violation of Article 7(1), (2) and (3), the Court should indicate that the Public Law Chamber specifically ordered that: a) the order of arrest against Gustavo Cesti Hurtado should be revoked; b) the restriction to travel abroad imposed on Gustavo Cesti Hurtado should be lifted, and c) the procedures under military jurisdiction should be suspended. It is evident that the military authorities defied the order of the Public Law Chamber in its entirety and proceeded to detain, prosecute and convict Gustavo Cesti Hurtado, in flagrant violation of a clear order issued by a competent tribunal. 31. Gangaram Panday case, Judgment of January 21, 1994. Series C No. 16, para. 47.