arbitrary detentions and must occur “without delay.” 136 A detained person must “be brought” before “a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power.” This implies that the judge must hear the detainee in person and consider all the explanations provided by the latter, in order to decide whether to release him or to maintain the deprivation of liberty. 137 Furthermore, if he is an “officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power,” he must comply with the characteristics of impartiality and independence that must regulate any organ responsible for determining the rights and obligations of the individual.” 138 B.2 Application of the standards to the specific case 75. Firstly, the Court notes that Mr. López was detained during a state of emergency decreed on May 19, 2000. In the early hours of that that day, before Mr. López was detained, the President issued Decree 8,772 in which he declared a state of emergency, pursuant to Article 288 of the Constitution. 139 Under the article in question, the Executive Branch was permitted, inter alia, to order the detention of individuals, provided that it was carried out “by decree and in each individual case,” and “the Supreme Court of Justice [was informed] immediately of the individuals detained under the State of Emergency.” The state of emergency remained in force until May 31, 2000. 140 The Court recalls that under certain circumstances the suspension of guarantees may be the only way to deal with emergency situations and, thereby, to preserve the highest values of a democratic society. 141 However, it must comply strictly with the limits provided for in international law generally and the Convention in particular, including the requirements established in Article 27 of the American Convention. 142 In this way, the essential judicial guarantees to protect rights and freedoms cannot be suspended, which includes the right of everyone deprived of their liberty to have recourse to a competent judge or court to decide the legality of their detention or habeas corpus, and the prohibition of the arbitrary deprivation of liberty. 143 76. Although, as already mentioned, Mr. López’s initial detention was for the time that the state of emergency lasted, the State argued, both in its answering brief 144 and 136 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, supra, para. 57, and Case of Aroca Palma et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 81. 137 Cf. Case of Pollo Rivera et al. v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 21, 2016. Series C No. 319, para. 103, and Case of García Rodríguez et al. v. Mexico, supra, para. 139. 138 Cf. Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2010. Series C No. 218, para. 108, Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 24, 2012. Series C No. 251, para. 137. 139 Cf. Office of the President, Ministry of National Defense, Decree 8,772, of May 19, 2000, available at: https://paraguay.justia.com/nacionales/decretos/decreto-8772-may-19-2000/gdoc/. 140 Cf. IACHR. Third report on the situation of human rights in Paraguay, OEA/Ser./L/VII.110, of March 9, 2001 (evidence file, folio 1606). 141 Cf. Habeas corpus in emergency situations (Arts. 27(2), 25(1) and 7(6) American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-8/87 of January 30, 1987. Series A No. 8, para. 20. 142 Cf. Judicial guarantees in states of emergency (Arts. 27(2), 25 and 8 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987. Series A No. 9, para. 21, and Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 43. 143 Cf. Habeas corpus in emergency situations (Arts. 27(2), 25(1) and 7(6) American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-8/87 of January 30, 1987. Series A No. 8, para. 24, and Case of Osorio Rivera and family members v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2013. Series C No. 274, para. 120. 144 Cf. State’s answering brief, June 20, 2022, paras. 68 et seq. (merits file, folios 127 et seq.). 23