A. Deprivation of liberty of the alleged victims and remedies pursued by Mr. Eusebio Domingo Revelles in order to regain his liberty. 104. The Inter-American Court has held that Article 7 of the Convention contains two distinct types of regulation: one type is of a general nature and the other, of a specific nature. The general type is set forth under Article 7.1: “Every person has the right to personal liberty and security;” while the specific type is made up of several guarantees protecting the right not to be deprived of liberty unlawfully (Article 7.2) or in an arbitrary manner (Article 7.3), to be informed of the reasons for the detention and the charges brought against the person taken into custody (Article 7.4), to judicial control of the deprivation of liberty and to a reasonable length of time of the remand in custody (Article 7.5), to contest the lawfulness of the arrest (Article 7.6) and not to be detained for debt (7.7).88 105. The Court has established that “any violation of subparagraphs 2 to 7 of Article 7 of the Convention necessarily entails the violation of Article 7.1 thereof, because the failure to respect the guarantees of the person deprived of liberty leads to the lack of protection of that person’s right to liberty.”89 1. Right not to be unlawfully deprived of liberty 106. Article 7.2 of the Convention establishes that “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.” Based on a holding of the Court, this subparagraph of Article 7 recognizes the main guarantee of the right to physical liberty: the legal exception, according to which the right to personal liberty can only be affected by a law.90 107. Next, the Commission will examine whether the arrests of the alleged victims were conducted in keeping with provisions of Ecuadorian law. 108. The legislation used in Ecuador to regulate arrests in the context of investigations into allegedly drug-related offenses has been addressed by the bodies of the Inter-American system on several occasions. As for the Commission, it is fitting to mention its Report on the Human Rights Situation in Ecuador,91 as well as merits reports it issued in the cases of Dayra María Levoyer Jiménez92 and Ruth Rosario Garcés Valladares.93 The IACHR has also referred several cases to the Court wherein it has had the opportunity to examine Ecuadorian legislation on this subject matter. Particularly, the Court has ruled on this issue in the cases of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Iñiguez; Acosta Calderón; Tibi and Suárez Rosero, all of them, against the State of Ecuador.94 109. Article 19 of the Ecuadorian Constitution in force at the time of the arrests of the alleged victims established: 88 IA Court of HR. 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. 51. 89 IA Court of HR., Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206. Para. 11. 90 IA Court of HR. 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. 55. 91IACHR, Report on the Human Rights Situation in Ecuador, OEA/Ser.L/II.96, Doc. 10 rev.1 of April 24, 1997. See Chapter VII Right to Personal Liberty. Available at: http://www.cidh.org/countryrep/Ecuador-sp/Capitulo%207.htm 92 IACHR, Merits Report 66/01.Case 11.992 Dayra María Levoyer Jiménez (Ecuador), June 14, 2001. 93IACHR, Merits Report 64/99, Case 11.778 Ruth del Rosario Garcés Valladares, April 13, 1999. 94 IA Court of HR. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170; Case of Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129; and Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114; IA Court of HR. Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Merits. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35. 27