during the public hearing 145 and in its final written arguments, 146 that Mr. López’s detention was not carried out in application of the regulations governing the state of emergency, but rather based on Article 12 of the Constitution and the National Police’s Organizational Law and Disciplinary Regulations. Therefore, and since the system was not applied in the instant case, the Court will not analyze the legal provisions related to the state of emergency. 77. Having established the above, the Court notes that Mr. López was deprived of his liberty as a result of three different steps that were taken. The first was on May 19, 2000, following the police disciplinary proceedings initiated against him in the wake of the failed coup attempt and his alleged participation therein. 147 Then, and as part of the criminal proceedings initiated against Mr. López on May 27, 2000, the Public Prosecution Service ordered his arrest along with five other people “indicted” for the crime of committing “punishable acts against the existence of the State and the constitutional order.” 148 Finally, on May 31, 2000, the Second Criminal Court of Guarantees issued an interlocutory order for the preventive detention of Mr. López Sosa and other officers. 149 This Court also notes that, although the detention carried out under the aegis of the police disciplinary proceedings was prolonged due to the measures adopted in the criminal proceedings subsequently initiated against Mr. López, neither the Commission nor the representatives alleged that the arrests ordered as part of the criminal proceedings constituted a violation of the Convention. Therefore, the Court will not analyze them. This Court will only examine Mr. López’s first arrest, which took place as part of the police disciplinary proceedings. 78. In particular, the Court will address the alleged violation of the right to liberty and examine (i) the legality of the detention, (ii) the alleged violation of Mr. López’s right to be informed of the reasons for his detention and the charges against him, and (iii) the alleged lack of judicial control in his detention, in order to finally (iv) deliver its conclusions. In doing so, the Court will analyze the detention in light of the provisions of Article 7 of the American Convention. 79. Firstly, the Court recalls that Mr. López was detained on the morning of May 19, 2000, upon arriving at the office of Chief Inspector (Comisario) J.B.P., at Metropolitan Police Station 11. Mr. López’s hands were immediately tied behind his back, he was blindfolded, and he was then interrogated about his alleged involvement in the failed coup d’état that had taken place the day before (supra paras. 25 to 27). The State maintained that the detention was carried out pursuant to Article 12 of Paraguay’s 145 By way of illustration, during the public hearing the State observed that “returning to the arrest, Law 222 of 1993, the Organizational Law of the National Police, establishes that arrests are to be carried out at National Police facilities and detainees allowed free communication with their families, and this measure may be applied for a minimum of five days and up to a maximum of 30 days. Under those regulations and in full compliance therewith, Order No. 62 of May 19, 2000 was issued for the arrest of Mr. López Sosa and other police officers at the Specialized Group by their superior officers in the National Police. The order set out the reasons for the arrest, which were related to the attempted coup d’état. Regarding this matter, it should be noted that Mr. López Sosa’s arrest, within the disciplinary framework of the police disciplinary investigation, was legal, as it was permitted under the internal regulations.” Cf. State’s final oral arguments in the public hearing held during the 155th regular session. 146 Cf. State’s final written arguments of March 1, 2023, paras. 23ff. and 81ff. (merits file, folios 334ff. and 345ff.). 147 Cf. Memorandum No. 62/00 from Inspector J.B.P. addressed to Chief Inspector (Comisario) J.D.O. of May 19, 2000 (evidence file, folio 1614). 148 Cf. Public Prosecution Service, Order No. 25, of May 27, 2000 (evidence file, folios 4452 to 4453). 149 Cf. Judge of Second Criminal Court of Guarantees, interlocutory order of May 31, 2000 (evidence file, folios 1618 to 1622). 24