59 6. Anyone who is deprived of his liberty shall be entitled to recourse to a competent court, in order that the court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his arrest or detention and order his release if the arrest or detention is unlawful. In States Parties whose laws provide that anyone who believes himself to be threatened 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. […] 174. Article 1(1) of the American Convention provides that: 1. The States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth, or any other social condition. 175. The Commission’s examination of the established facts in light of the right to personal liberty will be in the following order: i) General considerations on the right to personal liberty; ii) the practice of “provisional arrest” in the context of an extradition process, under the American Convention; iii) and analysis of the facts in the present case.. 1.1 General considerations on the right to personal liberty 176. The Inter-American Court has written that “Article 7 of the Convention contains two distinct types of regulations: one general, the other specific. The general one is contained in the first subparagraph: ‘[e]very person has the right to personal liberty and security’; while the specific one is composed of a series of guarantees that protect the right not to be deprived of liberty unlawfully (Art. 7(2)) or in an arbitrary manner (Art. 7(3)), to be informed of the reasons for the detention and the charges brought against him (Art. 7(4)), to judicial control of the deprivation of liberty and the reasonable length of time of the remand in custody (Art. 7(5)), to contest the lawfulness of the arrest (Art. 7(6)), and not to be detained for debt (Art. 7(7)).”167 177. It has also observed 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.168 178. As for the prohibition against arbitrary detention or arrest, the Inter-American Court has held that no one shall be arbitrarily arrested or imprisoned for reasons and methods which –though qualified as legal- may be deemed to be incompatible with respect for the fundamental rights of the 167 I/A Court H.R. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 21 de noviembre de 2007. Series C No. 170. Paragraph 51. 168 I/A Court H.R. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 21 de noviembre de 2007. Series C No. 170. Paragraph 54.