individual is subjected to certain types of treatment.51 In addition, the Court has indicated that any use of force that is not strictly necessary to ensure the appropriate behavior of a detainee constitutes an attack against human dignity in violation of Article 5 of the American Convention.52 53. Article 7 of the Convention embodies guarantees that represent limits to the exercise of authority by State agents. Those limits apply to the instruments of State control, one of which is detention. This measure must conform to the guarantees recognized in the Convention, provided that its application is exceptional and respects the principles of the presumption of innocence, and of legality, necessity, and proportionality essential in a democratic society.53 54. In this regard, the Court has established that Article 7 of the Convention contains two very distinct types of regulations: one general, the other specific. The general one is contained in the first paragraph: “[e]very person has the right to personal liberty and security”; while the specific one is composed of a series of guarantees established in paragraphs 2 through 7. In particular, Article 7(2) of the Convention establishes that “[n]o one shall be deprived of his physical liberty except for the reasons and under the conditions established beforehand by the Constitution of the State Party concerned or by a law established pursuant thereto.” The legal exception must necessarily be accompanied by the prior definition principle, which obliges the States to establish, as specifically as possible and “beforehand,” the “reasons” and “conditions” for the deprivation of physical liberty. Furthermore, Article 7(3) of the American Convention establishes that “[n]o one shall be subject to arbitrary arrest or imprisonment.” This means that, together with the provisions concerning the legal exception, any deprivation of liberty that is not based on a concrete reason or motive may be arbitrary and, thus, violate Article 7(3) of the Convention.54 In addition, Article 7(4) of the American Convention establishes that “[a]nyone who is detained shall be informed of the reasons for his detention.” Lastly, Article 7(5) of the Convention provides that the detention of an individual must be subject to immediate judicial review, as a way to prevent arbitrary and unlawful detentions.55 Any violation of paragraphs 2 to 7 of Article 7 of the Convention necessarily entails the violation of Article 7(1) thereof.56 55. The Court has previously indicated that, under Article 19 of the American Convention, the State must assume a special position of guarantor with greater care and responsibility, and take special measures or provide particular attention to guarantee the principle of the best interests of the child.57 The State also has the obligation to adopt all 51 Cf. Case of Ximenes Lopes, supra note 46, para. 127, and Case of Torres Millacura et al., supra note 41, para. 86. 52 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo, supra note 20, para. 57, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores, supra note 23, para. 133. 53 Cf. Case of the “Children’s Rehabilitation Institute”, supra note 48, para. 228, and Case of Torres Millacura et al., supra note 41, para. 71. 54 Cf. Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, paras. 128 and 143, and Case of Torres Millacura et al., supra note 41, para. 78. 55 Cf. Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 129, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores, supra note 23, para. 93. 56 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 54, and Case of Torres Millacura et al., supra note 41, para. 72. 57 Cf. Juridical Status and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002. Series A No. 17, paras. 56, 59 and 60; Case of Servellón García v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of 22