13 the Convention to be inadmissible. Moreover, the State pointed out that the essential requirements regarding his arrest had been complied with in the instant case. According to the State, Mr. Bueno-Alves “was arrested under the instructions of a competent, independent, and impartial judge, in accordance with the nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege praevia principle and pursuant to the legislation in force. […] He was duly informed of the reasons that led to his arrest, […] promptly brought before the court [and interrogated in] the presence of his defense counsel.” 65. The State considered that the fact that Mr. Bueno-Alves filed a complaint against Lage for events related to the purchase of a real property unit does not affect the legality of the arrest ordered by Judge No. 21, since such measure was supported by a complaint against Mr. Bueno-Alves filed by Lage, which was examined by a magistrate other than the one in charge of the investigation regarding the complaint filed by the alleged victim. In the opinion of the State, the possible connection between both cases should not result in the assumption that the arrest ordered by Judge No. 21 was illegal. 66. In that regard, the Court finds that, indeed, in Report No. 101/99 the Commission argued that: [n]one of the allegations made by the petitioner leads the Commission to conclude that [its] allegations constitute a breach of the provisions of Article 7 of the Convention […]. The petitioner was arrested “due to causes and in conditions established beforehand […] by the laws of Argentina. Likewise, it cannot be concluded from the statements made by the petitioner that the judge hearing proceeding No. 24.519, who ordered the arrest, acted in an illegal or openly abusive manner, exceeding the reasonable discretionary powers vested in his position. Therefore, the Commission concludes that the petitioner’s arguments regarding his allegedly illegal arrest, even if confirmed, do not constitute a violation of the Convention, and specifically of Article 7, as required by Articles 47(b) thereof and […] 41(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission. On the contrary, it is the Commission’s opinion that said allegations are outright groundless, pursuant to the provisions of Articles 47(c) and 41(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission. And declared: the allegations included [in] the instant case regarding [the] violation of Article 7 of the Convention inadmissible.27 67. The Commission adopted the foregoing decision in accordance with the powers granted thereto under Article 47 of the American Convention and pursuant to its Rules of Procedure. The Court does not find any reasons to modify the decision made by the InterAmerican Commission in the instant case. IX ARTICLE 5 (RIGHT TO HUMANE TREATMENT)28 IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 1(1) (OBLIGATION TO RESPECT RIGHTS) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION 27 Cf. Admissibility Report No. 101/99, issued by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on September 21, 1999, para. 69(2) (record of appendixes to the application, Volume I, Appendix 2, folios 35 to 37). 28 Article 5 of the Convention sets forth, in its relevant parts, that: 1. Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected. 2. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with regard for the inherent dignity of the human person.