- 76 the other specific. The general one is found in the first paragraph: “Every person has the right to personal liberty and security.” While the specific one consists 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 know the reasons for the detention and the charges brought against the detainee (Article 7(4)), to judicial control of the deprivation of liberty (Article 7(5)) and to contest the lawfulness of the detention (Article 7(6)).318 Any violation of paragraphs 2 to 7 of Article 7 of the Convention necessarily results in the violation of its Article 7(1).319 237. 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.” This Court has indicated that, in view of the reference to the Constitution and “a law established pursuant thereto,” the examination of the observance of Article 7(2) of the Convention entails the analysis of compliance with the requirements established as specifically as possible and “beforehand” in the said laws as regards the “reasons” for and the “conditions” of the deprivation of physical liberty. If the domestic law is not observed, both materially and formally, when depriving an individual of his liberty, this deprivation will be unlawful and contrary to the American Convention320 in light of Article 7(2). 238. With regard to the arbitrariness referred to in Article 7(3) of the Convention, the Court has established that no one may be detained or imprisoned for reasons and by methods that – although classified as lawful – may be considered incompatible with respect for the fundamental rights of the individual because, among other matters, they are unreasonable, unpredictable, or disproportionate.321 Thus, the arbitrariness referred to in Article 7(3) of the Convention has its own legal content, which must be analyzed only in the cases of detentions that are considered lawful.322 Nevertheless, the domestic law, the applicable procedure, and the relevant general express or tacit principles must, in themselves, be compatible with the Convention.323 Thus, the concept of 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. […]. 318 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 51, and Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 289, para. 106. 319 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, supra, para. 54, and Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru, supra, para. 106. 320 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, supra, para. 57, and Case of Argüelles et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 116. 321 Cf. Case of Gangaram Panday v. Suriname. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 21, 1994. Series C No. 16, para. 47, and Case of Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 364. 322 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, supra, paras. 93 and 96, and Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (The Disappeared of the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia, supra, para. 401. 323 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, supra, para. 91, and Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (The Disappeared of the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia, supra, para. 401.