27 1(1) therein, to the detriment of the victim "for its illegal and arbitrary detention, which involved acts that injured the standards fixed by the […] Court.” 85. Regarding the evidence furnished by the parties and taking into account the State’s confession, the Court considers it is a proven fact that on February 1, 1988, during the night, members of the National Army, without an arrest or search warrant or a confirmed situation of in flagrante delicto, detained Mr. Escué Zapata.92 86. Based on the foregoing, the Court considers that Mr. Escué Zapata was illegally detained by members of the National Army and as has been previously stated (supra, Para. 38), he was executed after a moment by his captors, without being necessary, thus, to determine if the victim was brought, without further delay, before the corresponding competent judicial authority; if he was informed of the reasons for his detention and, let alone, if the act of detention was unreasonable, unpredictable or out of proportion. It is evident that the detention of Mr. Escué Zapata constituted an illegal act, it was not ordered by a competent authority and its aim was not to bring the victim before a judge or another officer authorized by law, but to execute him,93 thus, it is also not necessary to rule over the alleged arbitrariness of such measure. That is to say, his detention was of an obviously illegal nature, and it contradicted the provisions of Article 7(1) and 7(2) of the Convention.94 * * * 87. The Court notes that in cases involving illegal or arbitrary detention of individuals, the State has the duty to investigate the case, in accordance with the guarantee established in Article 1(1) of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 7 therein. The evaluation regarding the obligation of guaranteeing this right through a serious, complete and effective investigation of the events shall be done in Chapter X of this Judgment. It is enough to say, for the purposes of the determination of the violation of the right to personal liberty, that in the instant case, the State has not effectively guaranteed this right. IX ARTICLE 11 (RIGHT TO PRIVACY)95 IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 1(1) (OBLIGATION TO RESPECT RIGHTS) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION 92 Cf. Statement rendered by Mr. Aldemar Escué Zapata on July 1, 1999 (record of Appendixes to the answer of the complaint, Prosecutor’s file, Folder 1, page 1804); statement rendered by Hidelbran Castro Quintero, on March 17, 2006 (record of Appendixes to the answer of the complaint, Prosecutor’s file, Folder 3, page 2389); affidavit rendered by Aldemar Escué Zapata on January 16, 2007 (record of the merits, Volume III, page 657) and action for inquiry of Evert Ospina Martínez of April 1, 2006 (record of Appendixes to the answer of the complaint, Prosecutor's file, Folder 4, page 2550). 93 Cf. Statement rendered by Oscar Iván Arias Herrera on March 18, 2006 (record of Appendixes to the answer of the complaint, Prosecutor’s file, Folder 3, page 2411); resolution of the 21 Specialized Prosecutor's Office of the National Unit of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law, on January 12, 2007 (record of the merits, Volume III, page 681) and statement rendered by Yolanda Prado Ruiz in the public hearing held before the Court on January 29 and 30, 2007. 94 Cf. Case of Gangaram Panday v. Suriname. Judgment of January 21, 1994. Series C No. 16, para. 51 and Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, supra note 8, para. 109. 95 Article 11 of the Convention, in its relevant part, provides that: […] 2. No one may be the object of arbitrary or abusive interference with his private life, his family, his home, or his correspondence, or of unlawful attacks on his honor or reputation.