36 ii) the competent authorities did not produce additional elements of evidence after the arrest to make the preventive detention, which was arbitrary, legal since there was no consistent, univocal, and direct evidence that could result in serious, precise, and concurrent presumptions against Mr. López Álvarez. b) Mr. López Álvarez was not notified without delay of the charges against him; c) Mr. López Álvarez could not be released on bail, and he remained imprisoned for seventy six months, in violation of Article 7(5) of the Convention. In the practice, the guarantee of a judicial revision of the imprisonment means sending the dossier to the judge of the case so that it may decide on the appropriateness of issuing a temporary commitment order, and d) the appeal for legal protection or the habeas corpus presented to protect the rights of the alleged victim were unsuccessful; this constitutes a joint violation of Articles 7(6) and 25(1) of the American Convention. 57. Arguments of the State The assertion that the arrest of Mr. López Álvarez was the consequence of a setup carried out in virtue of his actions as a social leader is false, since prior to the criminal trial followed against him it had carried out a police investigation in order to capture the alleged victim infragranti. Considerations of the Court 58. Article 7 of the American Convention states 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. 4. Anyone who is detained shall be informed of the reasons for his detention and shall be promptly notified of the charge or charges against him. 5. Any person detained shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to be released without prejudice to the continuation of the proceedings. His release may be subject to guarantees to assure his appearance for trial. 6. Anyone who is deprived of his liberty shall be entitled to recourse to a competent court, in order that the court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of 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. […] 59. The Court has stated that the protection of a person’s liberty covers both their physical liberty as well as their personal security, in a situation in which the absence of