28 83. Article 7 of the Inter-American Convention states that: 1. Every person has the right to personal liberty and security [...] 4. Any person detained shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to be released without prejudice to the continuation of the proceedings. His release may be subject to guarantees to assure his appearance for trial. 84. The Court considers that even when violation of Articles 7(1) and 7(5) of the Convention was not reflected in the application of the Commission, this does not prevent it from being stated before the Court, if based on the result of proven facts indicates that such violation was indeed produced. As a consequence, the Tribunal will analyze the way the capture was carried out, and how this lasted until the moment detainees were taken before a judicial authority. 85. In this case, as stated by the Commission, Durand Ugarte and Ugarte Rivera were detained by members of the police without a warrant or having been found guilty of any felony, and they remained isolated for eight days, according to Mrs. Virginia Ugarte Rivera statement before the Court. To this regard, the Tribunal has said that nobody could be deprived of personal liberty "but for causes, cases or circumstances explicitly reflected in the law (material aspect), and strictly subjected to proceedings objectively defined thereof (formal aspect)”. 41 86. Mr. Nolberto Durand Ugarte detention took place on February 14, 1986 and Gabriel Pablo Ugarte Rivera’s on the 15thon the same month and year. Both were taken to the corresponding judicial agency on March 4, 1986, such date has been taken for granted because the criminal proceeding was started on that date (supra para. 59.d) and because there was not any denying documentation submitted by the State. 87. The Court states that Durand Ugarte and Ugarte Rivera were detained by members of the Directorship against Terrorism, without intervention of flagrance or warrant. The State stated that the detention was not arbitrary. The Court, through a Secretariat note CDH-10 009/178 of June 25, 1999 by President instructions, asked the State to send the file opened against Nolberto Ugarte Durand and Gabriel Pablo Ugarte Rivera for charges on terrorism. But the State never provided this note that could have proven the existence of a detention warrant and other relevant elements to the determination of the related fact thereof. When it was referred to the facts it was done in an ambiguous way because juridical standard was not detailed that could be used as grounds for said detention. 88. As has occurred in other proceedings before the Court, this has to express its conclusions "disregarding the valuable help from a more active participation of the State, which would have meant, to adequately provide the defense”. 42 41 42 Gangaram Panday, supra note 10, para. 47. cf. Godínez Cruz Case, supra note 9, para. 143; and Velázquez Rodríguez Case, supra note 9, para. 137.