155. In this regard, the Court will examine the alleged violations under the following headings: (a) right to personal liberty; (b) right to life, and (c) right to humane treatment, all in relation to the rights of the child. B.1 Right to personal liberty in relation to the rights of the child 156. The Court has indicated that Article 7 of the Convention 191 establishes guarantees that represent limits to the exercise of authority by State agents. These limits apply to the State’s control mechanisms, one of which is detention. This measure must be implemented in conformity with the guarantees recognized in the Convention, provided that its application is exceptional and respects the presumption of innocence and the principles of legality, necessity and proportionality, essential in a democratic society. 192 157. The Court reiterates that children are entitled to all the rights recognized in the American Convention, in addition to the special measures established in Article 19 of this instrument; 193 consequently, any case involving a minor must include an examination of the rights of the child on a cross-cutting basis. Thus, the Court finds that, from the start of his detention, Eduardo Landaeta should have been afforded the treatment and the rights that corresponded to him as an underage adolescent (infra paras. 170 and 175). B.1.1 Unlawful and arbitrary nature of the detention (Articles 7(2) and 7(3)) 158. This Court has indicated, with regard to the specific guarantee of Article 7(2) of the Convention, that any requirement established by domestic law that is not met when depriving an individual of his liberty, will cause this deprivation to be unlawful and contrary to the American Convention. In other words, it is necessary to verify whether the detention is carried out in accordance with domestic law in order to establish whether the detention conforms to the Convention. 194 159. In this regard, article 60 of the 1961 Constitution of Venezuela, in force at the time of the events, indicated that: “no one may be arrested or imprisoned, unless that have been surprised in flagrante delicto, without a written order from an official authorized to order the detention, in the cases and respecting the formalities established by law.” In addition, it indicated that “if a wrongful act has been committed, the police authorities may adopt the provisional measures, based on necessity or urgency, essential to ensure the investigation of the act.” In addition, article 182 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 191 The Court has established that Article 7 of the Convention includes two types of regulations: one general and the other specific. Thus, with regard to the general obligation, the Court recalls that: any violation of paragraphs 2 to 7 of Article 7 of the Convention necessarily entails the violation of Article 7(1) thereof.” Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007, Series C No. 170, para. 54, and Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, members and activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile, supra, para. 308. 192 Cf. Case of the “Juvenile Re-education Institute” v. Paraguay. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 268, and Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, members and activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People), supra, para. 310. 193 Cf. Case of the “Juvenile Re-education Institute” v. Paraguay, supra, para. 147, and Rights and guarantees of children in the context of migration and/or need of international protection. Advisory Opinion OC-21/14 of August 19, 2014. Series A No. 21, para. 66. 194 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, supra, para. 57, and Case of J. v. Peru, supra, para. 126. 195 Article 182 del Code of Criminal Procedure, in force at the time, established: “Provided that it has been fully proved that a wrongful act has been committed that warrants imprisonment, evidently without the corresponding criminal action having prescribed, and there is well-founded evidence of a person’s guilt, the investigative court shall order the detention of the suspect, by means of a reasoned order that shall contain: 1. The name and surname of the suspect and any other information that helps to identify him. 2. A brief account of the factual and legal grounds for the arrest warrant and the provisional classification of the offense. The investigative court, if it has access to the accused, shall issue an order of imprisonment that it shall forward to the official in charge of the corresponding detention center. This order shall contain: (a) the name of the court that issues it; (b) the information on the identity of the accused; (c) the classification of the offense in the 41