court to decide the legality of his detention or habeas corpus, the prohibition of the arbitrary deprivation of liberty is a non-derogable right that cannot be suspended. 223 In addition, the International Committee of the Red Cross has established that the prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of liberty is a rule of customary international humanitarian law, applicable to both international and non-international armed conflicts. 224 Consequently, pursuant to “the obligations that […] are imposed by international law,” 225 the prohibition of arbitrary detention or imprisonment cannot be suspended during an internal armed conflict. 121. In this case, the state of emergency in force in the province of Cajatambo, department of Lima, suspended the right not to be detained without a court order and the right to be brought before a judge. In addition, in the case of in flagrante delicto, 226 according to the Constitution, only “the police authorities” were empowered to detain a person, provided that the detainee was brought before the court as established. However, under the state of emergency, the military forces were authorized “to exercise control of internal order” in the respective department and province. 227 122. In this regard, it is pertinent to recall that the possibility of granting the Armed Forces functions aimed at restricting the personal liberty of civilians should respond to strict criteria of exceptionality and due diligence in order to safeguard the treaty-based guarantees, taking into account that the regime of the military forces is not in accordance with the functions intrinsic to civil authorities. 228 Consequently, in some contexts and circumstances, the intervention of the Armed Forces in activities relating to public safety may entail the introduction of a risk to human rights. In this regard, the CVR asserted that “the intervention of the Armed Forces was carried out without the civil authorities taking the basic precautions to safeguard the fundamental rights of the population, which resulted in numerous systematic and/or generalized human rights violations.” 229 Thus, it established that, “[i]n view of the fact that the Army was responsible for internal order in most of the places declared emergency zones, it is not surprising that the members of this institution were the authors of such a large proportion of enforced disappearances.” 230 123. In the instant case, the evidence indicates that, on the night in question, there was an explosion and/or shots fired in the community hall of Nunumia where an event was being held, and it is plausible to consider that, in these circumstances, the Army patrol responsible for internal 223 Cf. Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 29: States of Emergency, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.11, 31 August 2001, paras. 11 and 16, and Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, A/HRC/22/44, 24 December 2012, paras. 42 to 51. 224 Cf. International Committee of the Red Cross, Customary International Humanitarian Law, vol. I, edited by JeanMarie Henckaerts and Louise Doswald-Beck, 2007, Rule 99. 225 Article 27(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights. 226 Article 259 of the Peruvian Code of Criminal Procedure refers to in flagrante delicto as follows: 2. In flagrante delicto exists when the wrongful act is being committed and, in that circumstance, the author is discovered, or when the author is followed and captured immediately after having committed the wrongful act, or when he is surprised with objects or signs revealing that he has just committed it. 227 Cf. Article 3 of Supreme Decree No. 016-DE/SG of April 2, 1991 (evidence file, volume IX, annex 16 to the State’s answering brief, folio 4649). 228 Cf. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220, para. 89. 229 Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Informe Final, 2003, General conclusions, para. 84 (evidence file, volume III, annex 12 to the submission of the case, folio 1588). 230 Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Informe Final, 2003, volume VI, Chapter 1.2, p. 82 (evidence file, volume III, annex 13 to the submission of the case, folio 1527). 45