120. That the events of July 11, 1997, and February 28, 2000, constituted deprivations of liberty is not disputed. The State has denied, however, that Mr. Cortez was detained in January of 1997, maintaining instead that the events were an “appearance proceeding” (supra para. 106). Mr. Cortez stated that he had been detained after being shown a detention order from a military prosecutor (supra para. 45). In any case, the Court holds that the arrest of an individual, even when not directly for the purpose of detaining them, but for other purposes, does limit their freedom of movement, and should therefore be analyzed in relation to the right to personal liberty. 103 Hence, the circumstances of January 1997, as well as those of July 11, 1997, and February 28, 2000, will be analyzed with respect to Article 7 of the Convention. B.1.1 Unlawfulness of the detentions 121. This Court has stated that if domestic laws, whether in the material aspect or the formal aspect, are not observed in the deprivation of a person’s liberty, that deprivation is unlawful and contrary to the American Convention, pursuant to Article 7(2). 104 122. The above-mentioned constitutional provisions (supra para. 37) in effect in Ecuador at the time of the events required a written order from a competent authority for a deprivation of liberty. 123. The detentions of Mr. Cortez in January and July of 1997 were ordered and carried out by military authorities in the context of military proceedings. They were declared null and void by the military justice system itself due to a lack of jurisdiction (supra para. 59). Those two detentions thus did not meet the requirement, established in the applicable domestic law, of being ordered by a competent authority. They were therefore unlawful. Moreover, in July of 1997, Mr. Cortez was in solitary confinement for at least 17 days. The expert witness Román Márquez pointed out that Article 29 of the Code of Military Criminal Procedure required solitary confinement for arrested individuals until their initial formal statement had been received. 105 However, the constitutional text permitted a maximum of 24 hours of solitary confinement. The duration of Mr. Cortez’s solitary confinement thus constitutes an additional element of unlawfulness. It is unnecessary to assess additional arguments related to the unlawfulness of the detentions of 1997. 124. In addition, the Constitutional Court found that the detention of Mr. Cortez on February 28, 2000, did not meet the requirements established in the applicable legal order, as written detention orders had not been issued. In fact, the evidence shows that the Constitutional Court declared on May 9, 2000, that the detention was carried out “even though an order for his detention had not been issued by the judge with jurisdiction” (supra para. 68). The InterAmerican Court is in agreement with the Constitutional Court that the February 28, 2000, deprivation of Mr. Cortez’s liberty was unlawful. 106 The Court held the same view on other occasions, such as in cases in which the police acted with the aim of “identification” (cf. Case of Azul Rojas Marín et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of March 12, 2020. Series C No. 402, paras. 110–135, and Case of Fernández Prieto and Tumbeiro v. Argentina. Merits and reparations. Judgment of September 1, 2020. Series C No. 411, paras. 76–101). 104 Cf. Case of Gangaram Panday v. Suriname. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of January 21, 1994. Series C No. 16, para. 47, and Case of González et al. v. Venezuela. Merits and reparations. Judgment of September 20, 2021. Series C No. 436, para. 95 105 Written expert opinion of Álvaro Francisco Román Márquez (evidence file, folios 1104–1137). Article 29 states: “[...] The suspect will be held in solitary confinement before making the initial formal statement.” 106 This Court would like to clarify that, in the context of its jurisdiction and functions, its assessment is not determined by the decisions of domestic legal authorities, but that these decisions can be considered (cf. Case of Movilla Galarcio et al. v. Colombia. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of June 22, 2022. Series C No. 462, para. 122) This Court notes that there is no evidence that the Constitutional Court’s decision of May 10, 2000—which was based on an interpretation of the requirements set forth in applicable domestic law for the deprivation of liberty— 103 27