15 65. Regarding Mr. Lapo, on November 14, 1997, the same Guayas Twelfth Criminal Judge ordered the search of the Plumavit factory,37 because, according to the Police, the premises were used by the “criminal drug-trafficking organization.” During the search, carried out on November 15, 1997, the police agents detained thirteen Plumavit employees, including Mr. Lapo.38 66. The Court observes that the warrant for the arrest of Mr. Lapo is dated November 15, 1997,39 the day that he was detained, and that the order for his arrest issued by the judge is dated November 18, 1997, three days after his arrest. These irregularities prevent the Court from establishing the existence of judicial authorization prior to Mr. Lapo’s arrest that would comply with domestic laws. Moreover, the State has not provided a reasonable explanation. Therefore, the Court finds Ecuador responsible for the violation of Article 7(2) of the Convention to the detriment of Mr. Lapo. * * * 67. The State asked this Court to rule on whether “the presence of a judge […] replaces [...] the written order of the competent judge.” 68. In this regard, the Court points out that domestic law does not contemplate this possibility, and that any arrest carried out without a written judicial order, except in flagrante delicto, would be unlawful. b) Information about the reasons for the arrest 69. As can be seen from paragraph 59 supra, domestic law requires that “[a]ll persons shall be informed immediately of the reason for their arrest.” In addition, Article 7(4) of the American Convention establishes that “[a]nyone who is detained shall be informed of the reasons for his arrest.” This leads the Court to examine the facts of the instant case under these two normative parameters: one based on domestic law and the other on the Convention. If it is established that the State did not inform the victims of the “motives” or “reasons” for their arrest, the arrest would be unlawful and, consequently, contrary to Article 7(2) of the Convention; but, it would also constitute a violation of the right embodied in Article 7(4) thereof. 70. In Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras, the Court established that the information on the “motives and reasons” for the arrest must be provided “when [the arrest] occurs,” as this “constitutes a mechanism to avoid unlawful or arbitrary arrests as of the very moment of the deprivation of liberty and, also, guarantees the individual’s right of defense.”40 In addition, the right to be informed of the reasons for the arrest allows the detained person to contest its lawfulness, using the legal mechanisms that all the States must offer pursuant to Article 7(6) of the Convention. 71. The information about the motives and reasons for the arrest necessarily supposes, first, providing information on the arrest itself. The detained person must 37 Cf. court order of November 14, 1997, supra note 33. 38 Cf. arrest report submitted to the Guayas Provincial Anti-narcotics Chief on November 15, 1997 (judicial case file, volume 1, folios 1310 and 1311). 39 Cf. warrant issued on November 15, 1997, by the Guayas Twelfth Criminal Judge, for the arrest of Mr. Lapo (judicial case file, volume 2, folio 1489). 40 Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 82.