105 be held in preventive detention in both cases, said officer cannot review the legality of his own orders. Consequently, the requirements laid down in Article 7(5) of the Convention were not met by Mr. Palamara-Iribarne’s being brought before the Office of the Magallanes Naval Prosecutor. * * * 224. Moreover, under Article 7(4) of the Convention, anyone who is detained shall be informed of the reasons for his detention and promptly notified of the charge or charges against him. In turn, Article 8(2)(b) requires that notification to the accused of the charges against him be “prior and in detail.” 225. Article 8(2)(b) of the American Convention requires that the competent judicial authorities notify the person held in detention of the charges against him, the reasons therefor and the crimes for which he is being prosecuted, prior to the proceeding.221 For this right to be fully enforced and satisfy the purposes for which it is intended, it is necessary that such notice be given before the person held in detention provides his first statement.222 Moreover, the Court finds that the enforcement of this guarantee is to be specially taken into consideration when taking measures that restrict the right to personal liberty, as in the instant case. 226. It is a proven fact that on the night of March 1, 1993, Mr. Palamara-Iribarne was arrested by the military authorities who seized those copies of his book he kept at home, even though the case file contains no record of an arrest warrant being notified to him. Once taken to the Clerk’s Office of the Office of the Magallanes Naval Prosecutor, the Prosecutor “immediately scheduled an interview” to take Mr. Palamara-Iribarne’s statement on the grounds that doing so “was necessary,” without stating the purpose of such statement (supra para. 63(21)). The taking of such statement went on until 12:40 a.m. on March 2, 1993. 227. During the seizing of books on the night of March 1, 1993, Mr. PalamaraIribarne was arrested without being notified of the reasons therefor or the charges against him. Furthermore, Mr. Palamara-Iribarne’s first statement to the military authorities was taken by the Naval Prosecutor while he was being held at military premises even though the Prosecutor did not give him prior detailed notice of the charges against him before taking such statement (supra para. 63(21)). This means that Mr. Palamara-Iribarne provided his first statement without being first given prior notice of the crimes he was being charged with, and the State thus violated Articles 7(4) and 8(2)(b) of the Convention. * * * 221 Cf. Case of Acosta-Calderón, supra note 189, para. 118; Case of Tibi, supra note 206, para. 187. Also, see U.N. Human Rights Committee. General Comment No. 13, on “Equality before the courts and the right to a fair and public hearing by an independent court established by law (Article 14),” paragraph 8. 222 187. Cf. Case of Acosta-Calderón, supra note 189, para. 118; and Case of Tibi, supra note 206, para.