8 XIV. As regards the violation of Article 7(3) of the American Convention by the State of Peru, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, -which prohibits the State to deprive a person of his liberty for any reasons or methods that may be considered incompatible with the respect for his human rights-, I can only concur with the rest of the judges of this Honorable Court regarding the period comprised between May 13, 2003 and June 24, 2003. In effect, it has been established that (i) such was the period of time elapsed between the court ruling quashing the previous proceedings -upon the motion of the interested party and pursuant to the decision rendered by the Constitutional Court on January 3, 2003- and the date of the order to commence the pretrial investigation in the second proceedings, under an arrest warrant; and (ii) the imprisonment of Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas during said period was not based on a court order or on a case of flagrante delicto -as required by the Peruvian Constitution and the American Convention. Consequently, the State violated Article 7(3) of the Convention only during said period. Thus, in my view, there has been a violation of the general principle of liberty embodied in Article 2(24) of the Peruvian Constitution -which corresponds to Article 7 of the American Convention-, which provides that any restriction on liberty must be strictly proportionate and specifically grounded on reasons of comparable or greater importance than liberty itself. XV. Notwithstanding the foregoing, I do not draw the same conclusion as the majority of the Court, in relation to the period beginning on June 24, 2003 with the Order to Commence the Pre-trial Investigation in the second proceedings, which, regrettable as it may be, are still pending; therefore, I do not agree with the consideration of the Court set out in paragraph 144 and the corresponding operative paragraph. Jorge Santistevan de Noriega Ad Hoc Judge Pablo Saavedra-Alessandri Secretary San José, Costa Rica, November 25, 2005