the Court.48 However, according to the clarifications, principally from the representatives and the State, the law that was applied was modified by Law 4123, dated September 14, 1995. This version was later submitted to the Court. Therefore, the Court will examine the pleadings regarding this chapter based on Article 10, subsection b), of the version of Law 815 that was modified by Law 4123 and is applicable in this case. The Court also finds it appropriate to note that, according to the clarification submitted by the State, that Law is no longer currently in force. 49 69. The Convention has enshrined the prohibition of illegal or arbitrary detention or imprisonment as a principal guarantee of liberty and individual security. The Court has expressed, with regard to the detention, “that even though […] the State has the right and obligation to guarantee its security and maintain public order, its power is not unlimited, since it has the duty, at all times, to apply procedures pursuant to Law and respectful of the fundamental rights of all individuals under its jurisdiction.” 50 70. Thus, with the purpose of maintaining security and public order, the State legislates and adopts various measures of a different nature to prevent and regulate certain conduct of its citizens. One of those measures is to establish the presence of police personnel in public spaces. Nevertheless, the Court notes that improper action taken by State agents in their interaction with the individuals they should be protecting represents one of the principal threats to the right to personal liberty, which, when violated, risks also causing the violation of other rights, such as the rights to humane treatment and, in some cases, to life. 51 71. Article 7 of the Convention enshrines guarantees that represent limits to State agents' exercise of authority. Those limits are applied to instruments of State control, one of which is detention. This measure is in compliance with the guarantees enshrined in the Convention only as long as its application is exceptional and respects the principle of the presumption of innocence, as well as the principles of legality, necessity, and proportionality, all of which are indispensable in a democratic society. 52 48 Cf. Law 815 "Organic Policing Law," Chapter 3, "Powers," Article 10.- For the exercise of the police security functions established in this chapter, police may: [...] b) Detain all individuals whose criminal record and means of living must be ascertained under circumstances that justify the detentions or when identification is refused. The delay or detention of the party shall not last longer than the time necessary for identifying the party and establishing domicile, conduct and means of living, without exceeding to period of 24 hours” 49 Currently the “Law XIX – N° 5 is applicable (before Law 815).” This is evident a result of the clarifications presented by the State. That provision indicates the following in Article 10: For the exercise of the function of security police established in this chapter, they shall:[...] b) Hold the individual as necessary to obtain prior record under justifiable circumstances, when identification is refused, when identification is missing, or when the identification presented is not a certified identification document, providing an immediate account to the Public Prosecutor. In all cases the order shall come from the institution’s highest authorities and shall not exceed six (6) hours. It must be recorded in the police registries set up for that purpose. The detention shall not last longer than the amount of time necessary to meet the measure’s objective. The detainee shall be informed of his or her right to notify a relative or trusted individual and inform that person of his or her situation. Cf. “Annex 59. List of laws on public security in force in the Province of Chubut” (case file of annexes to the brief of pleadings and motions, tome XIX, folio 13342), and annex “LAW XIX - No 5 (Before. Law 815)”, submitted in the State’s brief of July 19, 2011 (case file on the Merits, tome II, folio 5068). 50 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras, supra note 21, para. 154; Case of Servellón García et al. V. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 21, 2006. Series C No. 152, para. 86, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores V. México. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220, para. 87. 51 Cf. Case of Servellón García et al. V. Honduras, supra note 51, para. 87. 52 Cf. Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute” V. Paraguay. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 228; Case of López Álvarez V. 23