37 give the States blanket authority to suspend them; nor is the State permitted to suspend them simply because there is no law that says otherwise. Finally, the suspension of guarantees must not be incompatible with other obligations and should not result in any form of discrimination. 106. Arguments of the State: a) the certified copies of the court record show that Mr. Castillo Petruzzi was detained on October 15, 1993, and made a statement the following November 4. This proves that “he was in isolation […] or incommunicado for fifteen days, not thirty”; b) “From [1980] onward, terrorism created a very tense situation in Peru […] forcing the competent authorities to implement the laws that the circumstances dictated.” Given the situation, the Executive Branch used the authorities conferred under Articles 231.a of the 1979 Constitution and 137.1 of the 1993 Constitution to declare a 60-day state of emergency in the affected areas, regulated by a “body of stringent laws”; and c) the Commission is bringing a case against the State for allegedly violating Article 7 of the Convention, even though rights had been suspended because of the terrorism rampant in the country. Such suspensions are permissible under Article 27(2) of the Convention, which does not list Article 7 as one of the non-derogable rights. 107. The Court observes that the Commission did not allege violation of Article 7 in its application; it did so only in its final pleading. However, this does not prevent this Tribunal from examining, during the proceedings on the merits, the Commission’s arguments concerning the defendants’ prolonged detention. 108. Article 5 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter the “European Convention” or “Rome Convention”) provides that “[e]veryone arrested or detained … shall be brought promptly before a judge,” the assumption being that anyone deprived of his freedom without any form of judicial control must be either released or brought promptly before a judge. The European Court of Human Rights held that while the word “promptly” must be interpreted with due regard for the “attendant circumstances,” no situation, however grave, gave the authorities the power to prolong incarceration unduly without violating Article 5.3 of the European Convention.85 109. In the instant case, the detention occurred amid a terrible disruption of public law and order that escalated in 1992 and 1993 with acts of terrorism that left many victims in their wake. In response to these events, the State adopted emergency measures, one of which was to allow those suspected of treason to be detained without a lawful court order. As for Peru’s allegation that the state of emergency that was declared involved a suspension of Article 7 of the Convention, the Court has repeatedly held that the suspension of guarantees must not exceed the limits strictly 85. Cf. Eur. Court H. R., Brogan and Others Case, decision of 23 March 1988, Series A No. 145-B, paras. 58-59, 61-62.