order executed two preventive detentions. In other words, it is possible to infer that Mr. Osorio River and his cousin were arrested owing to the explosion or the shots that occurred. In this specific case, in principle, Lieutenant Tello Delgado was acting in keeping with the mandate under the domestic norms in relation to the state of emergency, because, for security reasons, members of the Army were allowed to make arrests in cases of flagrante delicto, such as the possession of weapons and explosives. However, the Court finds it worth noting that no record was drawn up of the alleged confiscation of a firearm (supra para. 68), which would have constituted the material evidence of the offense, and this casts doubt on whether such a procedure was carried out. Then, both detainees were taken to the place in Nunumia where the Army patrol had its base and deprived of liberty because they were unable to leave of their own free will and were not allowed to speak to their family members. Mr. Osorio River remained there from the early morning hours of April 29 until the morning of April 30, 1991. 124. Now, having clarified the facts, those arrested should have been released – as occurred in the case of Gudmer Tulio Zárate Osorio on April 30, 1991 – or they should have been brought before the competent authority to take the appropriate decision with regard to their detention. In this regard, the Court considers insufficient to satisfy the guarantee of submitting a person’s detention to review that a radiogram was sent to the Commander General to report the detention, without bringing him before the corresponding authorities; particularly when, as indicated, there was a Police station in Gorgor district and an office of the Prosecution Service a few meters from the Cajatambo Counter-subversive Base. 231 125. In this regard, the Court recalls that, when analyzing a presumption of enforced disappearance, it should be borne in mind that the deprivation of liberty should only be understood as the start of the constitution of a complex violation that is prolonged over time until the victim’s fate and the whereabouts are known. In this regard, it is important to stress that, the way in which the deprivation of liberty is carried out is unimportant for the purposes of the characterization of an enforced disappearance; 232 in other words, any form of deprivation of liberty meets this first requirement. On this point, the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances has clarified that “the enforced disappearance may be initiated by an illegal detention or by an initially legal arrest or detention. That is to say, the protection of a victim from enforced disappearance must be effective upon the act of deprivation of liberty, whatever form such deprivation of liberty takes, and not be limited to cases of illegitimate deprivations of liberty.” 233 231 Cf. Judgment delivered by the National Criminal Chamber on December 17, 2008 (evidence file, volume IX, annex 20 to the State’s answering brief, folios 4728 and 4734). 232 The 1992 Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances establishes that enforced disappearances occur when persons are: “arrested, detained or abducted against their will or otherwise deprived of their liberty by officials of different branches or levels of Government, or by organized groups or private individuals acting on behalf of, or with the support, direct or indirect, consent or acquiescence of the Government, followed by a refusal to disclose the fate or whereabouts of the persons concerned or a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of their liberty, which places such persons outside the protection of the law.” In addition, article 2 of the 2006 International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance defines enforced disappearance as: “the arrest, detention, abduction or any other form of deprivation of liberty by agents of the State or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person, which place such a person outside the protection of the law.” Meanwhile, Article II of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons defines enforced disappearance as: “the act of depriving a person or persons of his or their freedom, in whatever way, perpetrated by agents of the State or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support, or acquiescence of the State, followed by an absence of information or a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the whereabouts of that person, thereby impeding his or her recourse to the applicable legal remedies and procedural guarantees.” 233 Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, Report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, General comment on the definition of enforced disappearances, A/HRC/7/2, 10 January 2008, 46