B.1. Basic guarantees in immigration proceedings deprivation of liberty and expulsion or deportation that may involve B.1.1. General considerations 346. It should be recalled that the Court has affirmed that Article 7 of the American Convention contains a general rule, established in its first paragraph, according to which: “[e]very person has the right to personal liberty and security,” and also another rule, of a specific nature, that consists of guarantees that protect the right not to be deprived of liberty illegally (Art. 7(2)) or arbitrarily (Art. 7(3)), to be informed of the reasons for the detention and of the charges (Art. 7(4)), to judicial control of the deprivation of liberty (Art. 7(5)), and to contest the lawfulness of the detention (Art. 7(6)). 378 Regarding the general obligation, the Court has reiterated that “any violation of paragraphs 2 to 7 of Article 7 of the Convention necessarily results in the violation of Article 7(1) thereof.” 379 347. The Court has also indicated that any restriction of the right to personal liberty must only be for the reasons and in the conditions previously established by the Constitution or the laws enacted in accordance with this (material aspect), and also strictly subject to proceedings objectively defined in it (formal aspect). 380 In addition, the Court has reiterated that any detention, regardless of the reasons or duration, must be duly recorded in the pertinent document, indicating clearly, at least, the reasons for the detention, who made the arrest, the time of the arrest and the time of the release, as well as a record that the competent judge was advised, in order to protect against any illegal or arbitrary interference with physical liberty. 381 If this is not done, the rights recognized in Articles 7(1) and 7(2) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, have been violated. 382 348. Furthermore, the Court has indicated that programmed collective detentions and roundups, which are not based on the individualization of wrongful actions and that lack judicial control are incompatible with respect for fundamental rights; among others, they are contrary to the presumption of innocence, unduly curtail personal liberty, and transform preventive detention into a discriminatory mechanism; consequently, the State may not implement them under any circumstance. 383 349. In addition, the Court has indicated that the right to judicial guarantees, recognized in Article 8 of the American Convention, refers to the series of requirements that must be observed at the different procedural stages to ensure that the individual is able to defend his rights adequately vis-à-vis any act of the State, adopted by any public authority, 378 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 51, and Case of J. v. Peru, para. 125. 379 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador, para. 54, and Case of J. v. Peru, para. 125. 380 Cf. Case of Gangaram Panday v. Suriname. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 21, 1994. Series C No. 16, para. 47, and Case of García and family members v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 24, 2012. Series C No. 258, para. 100. 381 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, para. 53, and Case of García and family members v. Guatemala, para. 100. 382 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, para. 54, and Case of García and family members v. Guatemala, para. 100. 383 Cf. Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 21, 2006. Series C No. 152, paras. 93 and 96. 112