39 Espinoza behind the existence of “emergency” laws to combat terrorism that permitted the suspension of fundamental rights established in the Constitution. They also alleged that: a) The State had violated Article 7(2) of the Convention to the detriment of Gladys Espinoza, because her detention was incompatible with the laws that regulated the deprivation of liberty, or with the exceptional requirements and purpose of emergency laws. They argued that the emergency laws and the actions of the State agents did not comply with the requirements of exceptionality and the need for supervision established by Article 27 of the Convention. Specifically, they indicated that Gladys Espinoza was arrested without a court order and in the absence of evidence that she was in flagrante delicto, and the DIVISE agents, who used violence and blows and threats, demonstrated clearly the absence of the guarantees of legal protection that are the purpose of Article 7(2) of the Convention. They indicated that although, at that time, the well-known “emergency laws” permitted the arrest of those suspected of the crime of treason without a prior court order, the suspension of any of the guarantees established by Article 7 of the Convention must always be exceptional and must be maintained only to the extent required by, and for the time strictly limited to, the exigencies of the situation. They also indicated that the concept of flagrante delicto was not included in the criminal procedural norms of Peru until 2003, with the enactment of Law 27,934 which regulated flagrante delicto for the first time; consequently, the requirement that the reasons for, and the conditions of, the deprivation of liberty be established by domestic law as specifically as possible was violated. Furthermore, they noted that the way in which the arrest was made, without a court order or any record, was indicative of the clandestine nature of the operation and the intention of the State agents to prevent an examination of how the emergency laws were applied in the case of Gladys Espinoza. Added to this, the unlawfulness of the detention was revealed by the fact that the presumed victim remained deprived of liberty for 80 days without access to a judge to review the lawfulness of her detention, and without observing even the basic legal requirements. b) The State had violated Article 7(4) of the Convention to the detriment of the presumed victim by failing to advise her promptly of the reasons for her detention and the charges against her, and for having prevented access to this information by her family members and lawyers who could have helped her obtain prompt access to measures of legal protection. c) The State had violated Article 7(5) of the Convention, because Gladys Espinoza was kept incommunicado, without her family being informed of her whereabouts or being able to visit her until more than 20 days after her arrest. Also, the presumed victim remained detained on police premises and without access to a judge for 80 days, from April 17 to June 24, 1993, when she was transferred to the Chorillos Maximum Security Women’s Prison. Her first appearance before a judge took place on June 24, 1993, before the Special Military Court of the Judicial District of the Peruvian Air Force; in other words, before a military judge. In addition, they argued that, since the presumed victim’s detention was unlawful and arbitrary from the onset, the time that she remained detained was manifestly unreasonable under the Convention. Lastly, the representatives agreed with the Commission regarding the alleged violation of Article 7(6) of the Convention. 105. The State’s arguments were as follows: a) Regarding the arrest, it affirmed that it had respected the constitutional norms in force at the time of the events, as well as the rights established in Articles 7(2) and 7(3), in relation to Article 1(1), of the Convention. It indicated that, when Gladys Espinoza was arrested, the Department of Lima and the Constitutional Province of Callao were under emergency rule; in other words, they had been declared in a state of emergency, decreed on March 23, 1993. According to Peru, under the state of emergency “the constitutional guarantees established in article 2, paragraphs 7 (inviolability of the home), 9 (freedom of movement in national