17 detention of the alleged victim took place in the context of preliminary proceedings in a criminal case filed for the repeated perpetration of kidnapping for ransom under case No. 4227, entitled “Macri, Mauricio. Unlawful Deprivation of Liberty,” being processed by National Criminal Court of First Instance No. 25 of the Capital of the Argentine Republic.42 In his testimony before the Court, Juan Carlos Bayarri confirmed the circumstances, place and time of his detention and added that he was with his father when he was detained.43 58. Based on the information provided by the State in the proceedings before the Court (supra paras. 29 and 30), the Court finds that these facts, which are also clear from the body of evidence, have been established. 59. In particular, the Court observes that on May 11, 2005, National Court of First Instance No. 13, which heard case No. 66,138 concerning unlawful coercion and unlawful deprivation of liberty to the detriment of the alleged victim, issued a committal order against nine officials of the Argentine Federal Police, considering, with the degree of conviction required at that stage of the criminal proceeding, that it had been proved that Mr. Bayarri’s detention took place on November 18, 1991, in the Avellaneda district, without a prior written order issued by a competent judge.44 60. On July 25, 2005, Chamber VII of the National Criminal and Correctional Appeals Chamber confirmed the decision of the aforementioned Court of First Instance and determined that “Juan Carlos Bayarri and his father were unlawfully deprived of freedom of movement, which was confirmed by the circumstance that their arrest was hidden, the local judge did not intervene in the case, and only the former was placed at the disposal of the judge who intervened in the respective preliminary proceedings at a later date.”45 61. Indeed, the case file of the preliminary proceedings against the alleged victim (supra para. 57) does not include an arrest warrant issued by a competent authority in that district46 before the detention.47 Consequently, the Court finds that the State is responsible for violating Article 7(2) of the Convention to the detriment of Juan Carlos Bayarri. Court No. 4 of Lomas de Zamora that Juan Carlos Bayarri had been detained and made available to him since November 18, 1991 (Cf. file of attachments to the application, attachment 2.3, folio 67). See also, testimonies on the detention: testimony of Cándido Martínez Pérez, rendered on November 20, 1991 (Cf. file of attachments to the application, attachment 2.5, folio 72 to 74); testimony of Guillermo Daniel Balmaceda, rendered on November 20, 1991 (Cf. file of attachments to the application, attachment 2.1, folios 57 and 58); and testimony of Noemí Beatriz Lata de Caamaño of September 30, 1992 (Cf. file of attachments to the application, attachment 2.6, folios 76 and 787). 42 Cf. case No. 4,227, entitled “Macri, Mauricio. Unlawful Deprivation of Liberty” (helpful evidence submitted by the State, file 7176-1992, from volume (cuerpo) 1 to 19). 43 Cf. testimony of Juan Carlos Bayarri rendered during the public hearing, supra para. 7. 44 Cf. decision of May 11, 2005, issued by National Criminal Court of First Instance No. 13 (file of attachments to the application, attachment 4.3, folios 544 to 582). 45 Cf. decision of August 25, 2005, handed down by Chamber VII of the National Criminal and Correctional Appeals Chamber (file of attachments to the application, attachment 4.7, folio 632). 46 Article 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that: “When a person must be arrested in another jurisdiction, the arrest shall be made by issuing an official or rogatory letter to the judicial authority of the place where that person resides, with a transcript of the judicial decision ordering the arrest or imprisonment.” Cf. Code of Criminal Procedure (helpful evidence provided by the State, Codigo Penal.pdf). From examining the evidence provided, the Court merely observes the existence of the judicial order issued by the Federal Court of La Plata on November 19, 1991, a court that was competent to process the arrest warrant in the jurisdiction of the alleged victim’s domicile. However, this warrant was issued on the day after Mr. Bayarri’s detention; therefore, that court advised that the warrant could not be executed. Cf. search and arrest warrant issued by Federal Judge No. 1 of La Plata (Criminal Secretariat No. 3) of November 19, 1991 (helpful evidence submitted by the State, exp7176cuerpo2_92.pdf, page 243); request of November 18, 1991, by the Head of the Fraud Division of the Argentine Federal Police, Vicente Luis Palo, addressed to the Judge of First Instance No. 25, requiring “the issue of