illegality of the detention of Luis and Carlos Eduardo Uzcátegui (Article 7(2)); the alleged arbitrary arrest suffered by Luis and Carlos Eduardo Uzcátegui (Article 7(3)); the right to be informed of the reasons for their arrest and promptly notified of the charges against them (Article 7(4)); the right to judicial review of the detention within a reasonable time (Article 7(5)); and 5) the right to have recourse to a competent court (Article 7(6)). 148. First, the Court must ascertain whether the arrest of Luis and Carlos Eduardo Uzcátegui was carried out according to Venezuelan law, in order to establish the conventionality of the arrest. 149. As confirmed in the records, and recalling that the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in effect at the time of the events provides that “no person shall be arrested and detained except pursuant to a court order, unless caught in flagranti delicto”212, none of the statements by the police officers present at the incident in question mention that Luis and Carlos Eduardo’s arrests resulted from engaging in criminal activity and being caught in the act; on the contrary, their statements emphasize that they were removed from their home during the operation they were carrying out related to Néstor José Uzcátegui.213 It is also an undisputed fact that no arrest warrant was presented to them and that they were held at police headquarters until January 2, 2001. Moreover, no evidence was provided to show that the arrest was recorded. 150. Furthermore, although the State in a brief submitted before the Commission indicated that the brothers were arrested based on their alleged complicity with Néstor José Uzcátegui (supra para. 146), the Court notes that the State did not furnish sufficient evidence to show that Luis Enrique and Carlos Eduardo Uzcátegui had been arrested for that reason. On the contrary, aside from the State’s allegations (supra para. 146), it is recorded that the police officers present on the day of the incident claimed to have detained them in order to ensure their safety. 214 151. Also, with regard to the recording of the arrest, as provided in Article 4(2) of the Constitution, in this case the State refers only to a court report issued on January 1, 2001. The Court notes that this report does not appear to conform to domestic 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.” 212 Article 44 of the Constitution states: “1. No person shall be arrested or detained except by virtue of a court order, unless such person is caught in flagranti. In the latter case that person must be brought before a judge within forty-eight hours of his arrest. He shall remain free during trial, except for the reasons determined by law and assessed by a judge on a case by case basis. The bail required by law for the release of a detainee shall not be subject to tax of any kind. 2. Any person under arrest has the right to communicate immediately with members of his family, an attorney or any other person in whom he trusts, and such persons in turn have the right to be informed where the detainee is being held, to be notified immediately of the reasons for his arrest and to have a written record included in the case file concerning the physical and mental condition of the detainee, either by himself or with the aid of specialists. The competent authorities shall keep a public record of every arrest made, including the identity of the person arrested, the place, time, circumstances and officers who made the arrest.” 213 Cf. Police Report, statement of Juan Alexander Rojas of January 1, 2001 (Evidence file, volume 8, pages 3557 and 3558). 214 Some of the statements by police officers present on January 1, at the home of the Uzcátegui family, state that they proceeded to “remove [ Luis and Carlos Eduardo Uzcátegui] from the place to protect their lives.” See the Police Report, Directorate of Investigations, General Headquarters of the Armed Police Forces of the State of Falcón, of January 1, 2001, signed by Deputy Inspector Alexander Rojas (Evidence file, volume 7, pages 3557 and 3558) and Record of interview with Inspector Juan Alexander Rojas Reyes before the Technical Corps of the Judicial Police, Office of the State of Falcón of September 27, 2001 (Evidence file, volume 18, pages 5603 and 5604). 38