61 State in connection with its obligation to respect and guarantee the rights contemplated in the provisions of the Convention alleged to have been violated, both regarding to issues acknowledged by the State and those to be determined in the following chapters relating to the merits of this case and reparations. IX ARTICLES 3, 4, 5 AND 7 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 1(1) THEREOF (RIGHT TO LIFE, TO PERSONAL INTEGRITY, TO PERSONAL LIBERTY AND TO RECOGNITION OF JURIDICAL PERSONALITY) Arguments of the Commission 99. In relation to Article 7 of the Convention, the Commission alleged that: a) subparagraph 2 thereof was violated, inasmuch as the alleged victims were unlawfully deprived of their liberty, that is to say, outside the reasons and conditions established in domestic legislation, a person can be detained pursuant to an arrest warrant issued by a competent authority or in cases of crimes detected in the act. None of these conditions were met in the instant case; b) subparagraph 3 thereof was violated, inasmuch as both the circumstances and the methods used by members of the military to deprive the victims of their freedom are inconsistent with the respect for the fundamental rights of the individual. This was made even more conspicuous by the absence of proportionality if the detention is analyzed together with other factors, such as the fact that the alleged victims were sleeping, in the early hours, defenseless and unarmed, which increased the arbitrariness of their disappearance and/or execution; c) subparagraph 4 was violated, inasmuch as none of the alleged victims was informed of the motives for their detention or the rights available to them. They were simply led by State agents without further explanations or reasons, with violence; d) subparagraph 5 was violated, inasmuch as the alleged victims were abusively stripped of the protection of the authority that had to rule on their freedom in as short a time as possible. It should be taken into account that, according to available evidence, the abduction of the alleged victims was effected under the premise that they were suspected of being members of the group Sendero Luminoso (Shinning Path), pursuant to information gathered by the State Intelligence Service; e) subparagraph 6 was violated, inasmuch as the State did not allow the alleged victims to file a prompt and effective remedy by their own means in order to establish the legality of their arrest, and kept them under arrest in a place which was not an official detention center (nor was it authorized to be used for that purpose) without any institutional control such as records or minutes to ascertain the date, form and conditions of their detention, and