32 investigate him, unless his responsibility had previously been determined by the High Court of Justice in a constitutional trial of a political nature. In other words, that the subsequent actions in the context of those criminal proceedings were also invalid in toto and that, as Mr. Neptune’s juridical situation continues to be uncertain, there is still a risk that he can be deprived of his liberty again (supra paras. 70 to 76). 100. Irrespective of whether the political trial before the High Court of Justice takes place, considering the abovementioned context and that Mr. Neptune is still susceptible to being deprived of his liberty, it can be concluded that, during the two years and one month he remained in prison, Mr. Neptune was at all times unlawfully and arbitrarily detained, because the entire criminal proceedings were invalid ab initio, since his deprivation of liberty arose from the decisions of a court that lacked competence, as has been established (supra paras. 77 to 86). Thus, the State is responsible for the violation of Articles 7(1), 7(2) and 7(3) of the American Convention 101. The foregoing analysis suffices to conclude the examination of the alleged violations of Article 7 of the Convention. Nevertheless, the Court finds it desirable to determine the scope of the violations to other norms included in this provision. * * b) * The right to be informed of the reasons for the detention and, to be notified promptly of the charges (Article 7(4) of the Convention) and the right to be brought promptly before a judge and to a trial within a reasonable time (Article 7(5) of the Convention) 102. The Commission contended that the State violated Mr. Neptune’s rights embodied in Article 7(4) of the Convention, since “at the time of his arrest, [he] was not informed […of] the reasons for his detention […n]or was he advised of his rights.” 139 In addition, the Commission considered that the State violated that provision and Article 7(5) of the Convention, because “it did not bring Mr. Neptune promptly before a judge or another officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power.”140 To the contrary, [the Commission alleges,] Mr. Neptune did not appear before a judge [in relation to the incident for which he was arrested and detained] until 11 months after his arrest […].”141 103. The representative alleged belatedly that the State’s refusal to bring Mr. Neptune before a natural judge for 11 months and the failure to respect the legal time limits and procedures during the investigation of the case violated Mr. Neptune’s rights embodied in Article 7(4) and 7(5) of the Convention.142 104. Article 7(4) of the American Convention stipulates that “[a]nyone who is detained shall be informed of the reasons for his detention and shall be promptly notified of the charge or charges against him.” When the violation of this provision is alleged, the Court must examine the facts of the case under two normative parameters: domestic law and 139 Cf. Application submitted by the Commission, supra note 3, para. 87 (folio 123). 140 Cf. Application submitted by the Commission, supra note 3, para. 94 (folio 124). 141 Cf. Application submitted by the Commission, supra note 3, para. 94 (folio 124). 142 Cf. Final written arguments presented by the representatives, supra note 65, para. 75 (folio 285).