110 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. […] 223. The essence of Article 7 of the American Convention is the protection of the liberty of the individual from arbitrary or unlawful interference by the State and the guarantee of the detained individual’s right of defense.187 This Court has written that the protection of freedom safeguards both the physical liberty of the individual and his personal safety, in a context where the absence of guarantees may result in the subversion of the rule of law and deprive those detained of the minimum legal protection.188 224. Subparagraphs 2 and 3 of Article 7 establish the limits on public power and expressly prohibit unlawful and arbitrary detentions. The Court has held that: [a]ccording to the first of these regulatory provisions, no one shall be deprived of his physical liberty, except for reasons, cases or circumstances specifically established by law (material aspect), but, also, under strict conditions established beforehand by law (formal aspect).189 225. In the instant case, the right to personal liberty cannot be examined without taking into account that most of its alleged victims are children. In other words, a child’s right to personal liberty must of necessity take the best interests of the child into account; it is the child’s vulnerability that necessitates special measures of protection. 226. In the case sub judice the Court observes that both the Commission and the representatives alleged the existence of patterns or systematic practices that violated Article 7 of the American Convention, to the detriment of all the inmates interned in the Center in the period from August 14, 1996, to July 25, 2001. The Commission’s contention was that the effect of the practice was, inter alia, that inmates remained in preventive detention for long periods of time. The representatives, for their part, argued that it was a systematic practice, contrary to 187 Cf. Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 57, para. 66; Case of Bulacio, supra note 56, para. 129; and Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez, supra note 154, paragraphs 82-83. 188 Cf. Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 26, para. 82; Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 57, para. 64; and Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez, supra note 154, para. 77. 189 Cf. Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 26, para. 83; Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 57, para. 65; and Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez, supra note 154, para. 78.