violation of paragraphs 2 to 7 of Article 7 of the Convention will necessarily result in the violation of Article 7(1).129 77. The State recognized the violation of personal liberty, equality, and nondiscrimination, so there is no dispute in this regard. However, in order to analyze the scope of Argentina's international responsibility in relation to the obligation to adopt measures of domestic law, a legal analysis of these violations must be carried out, focusing on 1) analysis of the applicable legal framework and of the legality of the detention and 2) analysis of the arbitrariness of the detention and its relationship with the principle of equality and nondiscrimination. B.1. Analysis of the applicable legal framework and the legality of the detention 78. According to the police account, the arrest and detention of José Delfín Acosta Martínez was carried out in application of the Police Edict on Drunkenness.130 Thus, it is based on these regulations and the procedural regulations applicable at the time of the facts in the City of Buenos Aires that it must be analyzed whether the requirements established by Article 7(2) of the Convention were met.131 79. Article 7(2) recognizes the main guarantee of the right to physical liberty: the legal exception, according to which the right to personal liberty can only be affected by a law.132 This legal exception entails, first, a formal guarantee, in the sense that all restrictions on liberty must emanate from a “general legal norm tied to the general welfare, passed by democratically elected legislative bodies established by the Constitution, and formulated according to the procedures set forth by the constitutions of the States Parties for that purpose.”133 But second, it also has a material aspect, the prior definition principle, which obliges the States to establish, as specifically as possible and “beforehand,” the “reasons” and “conditions” for the deprivation of physical liberty.134 Thus, the Convention itself refers to the domestic law of the State in question in order to analyze compliance with Article 7(2). This does not mean that the Court ceases to rule in accordance with the Convention, nor that it plays the role of performing constitutional or legal review with regard to domestic law.135 It only means control of international treaty obligations, under the auspices also of Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention. 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. 54, and Case of Azul Rojas Marín et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 100. 129 Statement given to the chief of the police station by Duty Officer B.L.B on April 8, 1996 (evidence file, folio 55). 130 Article 7(2)(2). No one shall be deprived of his physical liberty except for the reasons and under the conditions established beforehand by the constitution of the State Party concerned or by a law established pursuant thereto. 131 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, supra, para. 56; and Case of Carranza Alarcon v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 3, 2020. Series C No. 399, para. 61. 132 The Word "Laws" in Article 30 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Advisory Opinion OC-6/86 of May 9, 1986. Series A No. 6, para. 27. 133 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, supra, para. 57; and Case of Carranza Alarcon v. Ecuador, supra, para. 61. 134 135 Cf. Case of Azul Rojas Marín et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 110. 26