35 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 (Art. 7(5)), and to contest the lawfulness of the arrest (Art. 7(6)). Any violation of subparagraphs 2 to 7 of Article 7 of the Convention necessarily entails the violation of Article 111 7(1) thereof. 153. For its part, the Commission has written that Article 7 of the American Convention upholds the guarantees of the right to personal liberty that the States Parties have undertaken to respect and ensure. Principally, any deprivation of liberty must be done in accordance with pre-established law; hence, “no one shall be subject to arbitrary arrest or imprisonment.” A person detained must be informed of the reason and promptly notified of any charge against him. A detainee must be presented promptly before a judge, and must be tried within a reasonable time or released pending the continuation of proceedings. Further, any person deprived of 112 liberty is entitled to judicial recourse, to obtain, without delay, a determination of the legality of the detention. . The United Nations Human Rights Committee has pointed out that “remand in custody pursuant to lawful arrest 113 must not only be lawful but reasonable in all the circumstances.” 154. The Commission is well aware of the climate prevailing in Peru when the anti-terrorist legislation was enacted in 1992, a time when repeated incursions by ilegal armed groups provoked a constant state of alarm in the population. A state of exception had been declared in several departments, which prima facie appeared 114 justified in order to combat these illegal armed groups. The Commission observes, however, that despite the prima facie legitimacy of this measure, the power to detain is not an unlimited power for the security forces, which they can use to take persons into custody arbitrarily. Suspending the requirement that a court order be obtained before taking a person into custody or arresting a person does not mean that public officials are no longer subject to the legal requirements necessary for ordering such a measure or that judicial oversight of the 115 way in which the detentions are conducted is suspended. Article 7(2) and 7(3) of the American Convention 155. The Inter-American Court has written that Article 7(2) of the Convention “recognizes the main guarantee of the right to physical liberty: the legal exception, according to which the right to personal liberty can 116 only be affected by a law.” It has also held that “[t]he legal exception must necessarily be accompanied by the principle of legal definition of the offense (tipicidad), which obliges the States to establish, as specifically as possible and “beforehand,” the “reasons” and “conditions” for the deprivation of physical liberty. Hence, Article 7(2) of the Convention refers automatically to domestic law. Accordingly, any requirement established in domestic law that is not complied with when depriving a person of his liberty will cause this deprivation to be unlawful and 117 contrary to the American Convention.” 111 I/A Court H.R., Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220. Paragraph 79. Citing Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, paragraph 54; and Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206, paragraph 116. 112 IACHR, Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Ecuador. 1997. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.96. Doc. 10 rev. 1. April 24, 1997. Chapter VII. 113 Case of Van Alphen v. The Netherlands, communication No. 305/1998, July 23,1990. 114 IACHR, Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Peru, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.106, Doc. 59 rev., June 2, 2000, Chapter II. ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND RULE OF LAW, paragraph 83. 115 IACHR, Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Peru, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.106, Doc. 59 rev., June 2, 2000, Chapter II. ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND RULE OF LAW, paragraph 84. 116 I/A Court H.R. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170. Paragraph 56. 117 I/A Court H.R. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170. Paragraph 57.