instrument, as well as for non-compliance with the obligation contained in Article I(a) of the InterAmerican Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. 162. The State indicated that the Peruvian Constitution allows the police authorities to arrest a person if they are found in flagrante delicto and, owing to the severity of crimes of terrorism, it authorized, exceptionally, the preventive detention of those presumed to be implicated in such crimes for no more than 15 days, with the obligation of informing the Public Prosecution Service and the judge. Thus, the State indicated that Jeremías Osorio Rivera was deprived of his liberty because he was presumably found in flagrante delicto, as established in article 279 of the Peruvian Criminal Code in force at the time of the facts; furthermore, a state of emergency was in force that had suspended the right to personal liberty. Consequently, the State considered that Jeremías Osorio Rivera had been deprived of his liberty legally with strict respect for the procedures established by Peruvian law in cases of flagrante delicto and a state of emergency in force in the area; accordingly, in the specific circumstances of this case, there was a legal justification for the deprivation of liberty and, therefore, it had not violated Article 7(2) of the American Convention. Regarding Article 7(3) of the American Convention, the State considered that the use of force by the members of the Army who detained Jeremías Osorio Rivera was necessary, reasonable and proportionate, because this was a person in possession of a firearm and explosives in a context of acts of terrorism. Therefore, the State affirmed that it could not be argued that Jeremías Osorio Rivera was unaware of the reason for the deprivation of his liberty, when this was evident. In sum, the State argued that it had not violated Article 7(3) of the American Convention. Finally, the State argued that it had not violated Article 7(5) of the American Convention because, at the domestic level, it had been found that the requirement to communicate the detention to a superior officer had been proved; moreover, this superior officer was one of those responsible for the control of internal order and the international responsibility could not be transferred to him or the failure of Mr. Osorio River, his lawyer and his next of kin to file an application for habeas corpus immediately after Jeremías Osorio Rivera’s arrest. In conclusion, the State asked the Court to declare that it had not violated Article 7 of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Jeremías Osorio Rivera. 163. The State denied that the right to humane treatment of Jeremías Osorio Rivera had been violated and assured that, as evidence of this, the other person who was detained at the same time had not alleged violations of his personal integrity. In addition, the State emphasized that some witnesses had indicated that moments before his deprivation of liberty, Mr. Osorio Rivera had been in a fight with his cousin, and he might have received some blows that would be those to which his family members referred. Furthermore, with regard to Article 5(2) of the American Convention, the State rejected the allegations that acts that constituted torture had been committed against Jeremías Osorio Rivera. The State also indicated that witnesses had seen Jeremías Osorio Rivera leave the Cajatambo Counter-subversive Base in good shape; hence, the State affirmed that this proves that there was no violation of his integrity, or to such a degree that it would constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and, in particular, acts of torture against him. According to the State, the facts of this case are not consistent with the modus operandi of enforced disappearance and, therefore, it cannot be inferred that Jeremías Osorio Rivera was interrogated violently and, above all, tortured during his detention. In conclusion, the State considered that the facts of the case do not include the necessary elements to be classified as cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and, especially, acts of torture, as established in Article 5(2) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument. 164. The State indicated that there was no basis for presuming that Jeremías Osorio Rivera had been deprived of his life by State agents. Accordingly, it concluded by arguing that it was not responsible for the violation of Article 4 of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations contained in Article 1(1) thereof. In addition, the State asserted that, since there was no evidence 60