37 b) Rights to humane treatment, to privacy, and not to be subjected to torture (section VIII.2); c) Sexual violence and the obligation not to discriminate against women (section VIII.3); d) Rights to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection (section VIII.4), and e) Right to personal integrity of the next of kin of the victims (section VIII.5). Before examining these alleged violations, it should be recalled that, under the provisions of Articles 33(b) 172 and 62(3) 173 of the American Convention, it is only incumbent on the Court to rule on the conformity of the State’s actions with regard to the provisions of this treaty. Thus the Court indicates, as it has in other cases, 174 that it is not a criminal court that analyzes the criminal responsibility of the individual. VIII.1. RIGHT TO PERSONAL LIBERTY, IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATION TO RESPECT AND ENSURE RIGHTS 102. The Commission and the representatives alleged violations of Article 7 175 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, owing to the facts relating to the arrest and preventive deprivation of liberty of Gladys Espinoza. In this chapter the Court will set out the arguments of the Commission and of the parties, and will proceed to examine the alleged violations of this article. A) Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 103. The Commission argued that the following violations of the right to personal liberty had been committed: a) Violation of the constitutional norms in force at the time of the facts and of the guarantees established in Article 7(2) and 7(3) of the Convention, because Gladys Espinoza was arrested by agents of the Abduction Investigation Division (DIVISE) in the absence of a court order and without any evidence to indicate that she was in flagrante delicto. During the public 172 Article 33 of the Convention establishes that: “[t]he following organs shall have competence with respect to matters relating to the fulfillment of the commitments made by the States Parties to this Convention: a. the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights […], and b. the Inter-American Court of Human Rights […]." 173 Article 62(3) of the Convention stipulates that: “[t]he jurisdiction of the Court shall comprise all cases concerning the interpretation and application of the provisions of this Convention that are submitted to it, provided that the States Parties to the case recognize or have recognized such jurisdiction, whether by special declaration pursuant to the preceding paragraphs, or by a special agreement.” 174 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 134, and Case of the Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations. Judgment of August 27, 2014. Series C No. 281, para. 243. 175 Article 7 of the 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. 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. […]”