42 existed to constitute a situation of flagrante delicto in relation to an offense of continuing execution, terrorism. However, in its final arguments, the State withdrew its arguments concerning the presumed flagrante delicto, affirming that, at the time of the events surrounding the presumed victim’s arrest, a state of emergency and suspension of guarantees was in force that enabled the State to deprive a person of liberty without a court order or grounds for flagrante delicto, provided that the principles of reasonableness and proportionality were respected and that “there should be no discussion as to whether or not flagrante delicto existed,” because “the terrorist group carried out abductions,” and this fact was related to the purpose of the suspension of guarantees (supra para. 105.a). Considering that Peru has withdrawn this argument, the Court need only rule on the arguments relating to the suspension of guarantees. 109. The Court has indicated that, since Article 7(2) of the Convention refers to the Constitution and laws established “pursuant thereto,” the analysis of its observance entails the examination of compliance with the requirements established as specifically as possible and “beforehand” in those laws with regard to the “grounds” and “conditions” for the deprivation of physical liberty. If the formal and substantial aspects of domestic law are not respected when depriving a person of their liberty, the detention will be unlawful and contrary to the American Convention 178 in light of Article 7(2). 110. However, first, it is necessary to examine the Commission’s objection that a situation of estoppel had been constituted because the State had not submitted its argument concerning the suspension of guarantees during the procedure before the Commission, but only recently during the proceedings before the Court, and because it was not mentioned in the Commission’s report (supra para. 103.a). In this regard, although the Commission did not refer directly to a suspension of guarantees, it is clear that the elements which it established did raise this issue, which is part of the factual framework of the case. Paragraphs 76, 77 and 106 of the said report reveal that the State had described and recognized the existence of “emergency legislation against terrorism” in force at the time of the facts of the case. Furthermore, the Commission referred to the establishment of the so-called “Emergency and National Reconstruction Government” and to the existence of the “anti-terrorist laws adopted in 1992.” Therefore, the Court determines that a situation of estoppel has not been constituted, and will take into account the arguments on the suspension of guarantees. 111. On previous occasions, the Court has heard cases against Peru in which the existence of a suspension of guarantees or the application of Supreme Decrees 25,475, 25,744 and 25,659 has been alleged. In those cases, no general question was raised on the alleged suspension of guarantees in relation to the scope of the alleged violation of the right to be arrested only by order of the court or in flagrante delicto. 179 However, this question has been raised in the instant case. The Commission and the representatives have argued that it is not sufficient to allege “the generic existence of a state of emergency,” because the detention of Gladys Espinoza was not compatible with the requirements of lawfulness, exceptionality and necessity, and the temporal 178 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, supra, para. 57, and Case of J. v. Peru, supra, para. 126. 179 Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of January 19, 1995. Series C No. 20; Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33; Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52; Case of Durand and Ugarte v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 89, Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69; Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110; Case of De la Cruz Flores v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 18, 2004. Series C No. 115; Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Peru. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137; Case of Osorio Rivera and family members v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2013. Series C No. 274, and Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275.