15 36. The Court deems it necessary to conduct a preliminary review of a statement made by the State in its answer to the application to the effect that Mr. Suárez-Rosero was tried on a charge of "grave crimes against Ecuadorian children, youth, and the public at large." The State requested that, for the above reasons, the petition be rejected and that it be struck from the list, especially since it has been irrefutably proven that Mr. Iván Rafael (sic) Suárez-Rosero was an accessory to a crime as serious as drug trafficking, which impairs not only the peace and security of the State, but more especially the health of its population. The State repeated that request in its brief containing its final arguments. 37. On the above-mentioned argument by the State, the Court deems it pertinent to point out that the instant proceeding is not concerned with Mr. Suárez-Rosero's innocence or guilt in the crimes imputed to him by the Ecuadorian courts. The duty to adopt a decision on those matters lies exclusively with Ecuador's domestic courts, inasmuch as this Court is not a criminal tribunal before which an individual's responsibility for crimes committed may be debated. Therefore, the Court considers Mr. Suárez-Rosero's innocence or guilt to be unrelated to the merits of the instant Case. In the light of the foregoing, the Court declares the State's request inadmissible and will determine the legal consequences of the facts that have been proven. IX Violation of Article 7(2) and 7(3) 38. In its application the Commission asked the Court to declare that Mr. SuárezRosero's initial detention was unlawful and arbitrary, in violation of Article 7(2) and 7(3) of the American Convention, since both this instrument and the Ecuadorian laws require such acts to be performed by order of the competent authority in accordance with the procedures and terms established by law. A further requirement, according to the Commission, is that the detention be necessary and reasonable, which has not been proven in this case. Lastly, the Commission argued that during the initial period of Mr. Suárez-Rosero's arrest, he was held in facilities unsuitable for persons in preventive detention. 39. The State, for its part, contended that Mr. Suárez-Rosero's arrest "was carried out in connection with a lawful inquiry and as a result of actual events, of which he was one of the protagonists." 40. In its brief of closing arguments the Commission stated that, in the course of the proceeding, not only had Ecuador not denied that Mr. Suárez-Rosero had been arrested in violation of Ecuadorian law, but that, on the contrary, the alternate agent of the State had admitted at the public hearing before the Court that Mr. Suárez-Rosero's arrest had been arbitrary. 41. Ecuador maintained in its closing arguments, on the subject of Mr. Suárez-Rosero's arrest, that "[i]t is surprised ... that the defendant has described a frightful scenario of detention and arrest and yet he is the only person to have appealed to the Commission to demonstrate such monstrous facts." 42. Article 7(2) and (3) of the American Convention on Human Rights establishes that 2. No one shall be deprived of his physical liberty except for reasons and under conditions established beforehand by the constitution of the State Party concerned or by a law established