109 b) all the inmates at the Center were taken there by order of the court. Therefore, these were not arbitrary detentions; quite the contrary, these were lawfully adopted measures or sanctions. Consequently the lawfulness of the preventive detention measures order by the competent judges against the juveniles interned at the Center is not a debatable point; c) the petition of habeas corpus filed had a specific purpose unrelated to the rights protected under Articles 7(5) or 7(6) of the Convention. The purpose of Ruling No. 652 of July 31, 1998, which granted that petition, was to place the juvenile offenders in adequate facilities. The judge who heard the petition did not challenge –nor did the original claimant- the lawfulness of the detention measures ordered against the inmates at the Center; d) an analysis of the combined list of alleged victims, presented by the Commission, plainly shows that the vast majority of the juveniles have been released by order of the court, after having served the detention ordered by competent judges; e) the principles requiring that preventive detention be reserved for exceptional cases and be for specified periods that are to be as brief as possible, and then only as a last resort, were not violated as the procedural code in effect at the time the petition was filed made no provision for those principles. As criminal law has gradually evolved, especially juvenile criminal justice (such as the Child and Adolescent Code, for example), this situation has been corrected and with that the aforementioned principles have been fully incorporated into domestic positive law. The Commission has not singled out any case that demonstrates that these principles were violated; f) under the previous system of criminal proceedings and when the former Minor’s Code was still in effect, there were problems in the handling of criminal cases. However, those difficulties have largely been corrected with the introduction of the new criminal proceeding and with application of Law 1444/99 “Transition to the New Criminal Justice System,” the results of which the Commission has noted on a number of occasions; and g) in May 2001, the Supreme Court delivered Policy Decision 214 regulating the competence of the juvenile trial and sentencing courts and ordering a redistribution of cases. It also established rapid procedures for settlement of cases instituted under the old Code of Criminal Procedure. Considerations of the Court 222. Article 7 of the American Convention regulates the guarantees needed to safeguard personal liberty and reads as follows: 1. Every person has the right to personal liberty and security. 2. No 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. 3. No one shall be subject to arbitrary arrest or imprisonment.