in force at the time regulated this constitutional norm and established the specific rules for ordering a detention, by indicating that “the investigative court shall order the detention of the suspect by a reasoned order.” Also, article 183 196 established that no one could be detained without meeting the requirements established in article 182, unless it was in flagrante delicto as established in article numeral 184 197 of that Code. 160. Regarding the detention of minors, the Court notes that, in the instant case, the State forwarded the Law for the Protection of Minors of December 30, 1980, which was in force at the time of the events, as helpful evidence. Article 99 of this law established that in “any police investigation activity in which children under 18 years of age are involved, the Children’s Attorney shall be present.” In addition, “if a minor is deprived of his liberty, and the Juvenile Judge has not been informed of his detention, the parents, the legal representative, the guardian, the Children’s Attorney, or the National Children’s Institute may request the Juvenile Judge to hear the case and immediately order the corresponding measures of protection.” 198 However, this Law for the Protection of Minors did not describe the proceeding or its guarantees, other than indicating the authority that should receive the case file. 161. In cases involving minors, the Court has stated that the content of the right to personal liberty cannot be separated from the best interests of the child, and the State’s position of guarantor with regard to children. 199 In this regard, Article 37(b) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by Venezuela in 1990, establishes that “States Parties shall ensure that: (b) No child shall be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily. The arrest, detention or imprisonment of a child shall be in conformity with the law and shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time.” 200 162. The Court takes note of the opinion given by expert witness Diego Camaño before the Court, that: “The State’s first obligation is to possess a specific legal framework that establishes clearly the causes and conditions under which State agents may proceed to deprive an adolescent of his personal liberty. This supposes that it has criminal and procedural laws that reflect the specificity of the rights of anyone under 18 years of age, based on the guiding principle of the best interests of the child. These laws must be in keeping with the paradigms of comprehensive protection that arise from the arrest warrant, and (d) the date of issue and the signature of the judge and of the clerk of the court. If the accused is not detained, the court shall issue an arrest warrant to the police authorities, indicating the identity of the suspect and the place where he is, if this is known. If it is not known, a search warrant shall be issued.” 196 Article 183 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in force at the time, established: “No one may be detained without meeting the requirements established in the preceding article, unless, in the case of an offense that warrants imprisonment, the said person is surprised in flagrante delicto. In this case, any authority must, and any private person may, arrest the person thus surprised.” 197 Article 184 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in force at the time, established: “For the effects of the preceding article, in flagrante delicto shall be considered the offense that is being committed or has just been committed; in flagrante delicto shall also be considered the offense when the guilty person is seen being pursued by the police, by the aggrieved person, or by public outcry, or in which he is surprised, shortly after committing the act, in the same place or near the place where it was committed, with weapons, instruments, or other objects that, in some way, allow it to be reasonably presumed that he is the offender.” 198 Article 101 of the Law for the Protection of Minors, published on December 30, 1980, in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Venezuela (file of helpful evidence, folio 10559). 199 Cf. Case of the “Juvenile Re-education Institute” v. Paraguay, supra, para. 152, and Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations. Judgment of May 14, 2013 Series C No. 260, para. 188. 200 Similarly, the Committee on the Rights of the Child has established that: “[t]he guiding principles for the use of deprivation of liberty are: (a) the arrest, detention or imprisonment of a child shall be in conformity with the law and shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time; and (b) no child shall be deprived of his/her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily. Cf. United Nations, Committee on the Rights of the Child. General Comment. No. 10, Children’s rights in juvenile justice, 25 April 2007, para. 79. 42