41 and security.” While the specific regulation is compose of a series of guarantees that protect the right not to be deprived of liberty unlawfully (Article 7(2)) or arbitrarily (Article 7(3)), to be informed of the reasons for the detention and the charges that have been brought (Article 7(4)), to judicial control of the deprivation of liberty (Article 7(5)), and to a decision by the court on the lawfulness of the detention (Article 7(6)). 176 Any violation of paragraphs 2 to 7 of Article 7 of the Convention necessarily entails the violation of Article 7(1) thereof. 177 On this point, it should be indicated that the Commission argued that the arrest of Gladys Espinoza was arbitrary, because the State authorities had used insults, blows and threats when making it, and without the State providing an explanation on the strict necessity and proportionality for this in light of the standards that regulate the use of force. In reply, the State argued that resistance to arrest and, consequently, a skirmish between the agents and the persons arrested, cannot lead to the conclusion that an act of violence entailing an arbitrary detention had occurred (supra paras. 103.b and 105.b). Since the Court has examined the use of force against persons arrested under Article 5 of the American Convention, it will make the corresponding factual and legal determinations in Chapter VIII.2, which analyzes the alleged violations of the personal integrity of Gladys Espinoza. 107. The Court will now examine the alleged violations of Article 7 of the Convention to the detriment of Gladys Espinoza in the following order: a) Article 7(2) of the American Convention (right not to be deprived of liberty unlawfully) in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, in which it will analyze the alleged unlawfulness of the arrest because it was made without a court order and without grounds for flagrante delicto, as well as because of the alleged absence of an adequate record of the arrest; b) Article 7(4) of the American Convention (right to be informed of the reasons for the detention) in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, in which it will analyze the alleged absence of information on the reasons for the detention and notification of the charges; c) Article 7(5) and 7(3) of the American Convention (right to judicial control of the detention and right not to be deprived of liberty arbitrarily) in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, in which it will analyze the alleged absence of judicial control of the detention, and d) Article 7(6) of the American Convention (right to recourse to a competent judge or court for a decision on the lawfulness of the arrest or detention) in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, in which it will analyze the alleged impossibility of exercising the remedy of habeas corpus. B.1. Article 7(2) of the American Convention (right not to be deprived of liberty unlawfully) in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument 108. Article 7(2) of the American Convention establishes that “[n]o 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.” The Commission and the representatives affirmed that the arrest of Gladys Espinoza was unlawful because it was made without a court order and without grounds for flagrante delicto, thus violating the relevant domestic norms (supra para. 103.a and 104.a). The State affirmed that these requirements were not necessary because there was a state of emergency and suspension of guarantees; it also indicated that, during the presumed victim’s arrest sufficient evidence 176 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 51, and Case of Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 28, 2014. Series C No. 282, para. 346. 177 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, supra, para. 54, and Case of Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 346.