66. provided that: The Commission further observes that Article 19 of the Constitution in effect at the time All persons enjoy the following rights: [...]16. Personal liberty and safety. Consequently: [...] h. No one is deprived of his liberty without a written order from a competent authority, in the cases, timelines, and with the formalities prescribed by law, except in cases of flagrant offenses.66 67. For its part, the 1983 Code of Criminal Procedure set forth the following: Article 172.- For purposes of investigating the commission of a crime, before the respective criminal action is initiated, the competent Judge shall order the arrest of a person, whether by personal knowledge or verbal or written reports from officers of the National Police or Judicial Police or from any other individual that substantiate the crime and the corresponding presumptions of responsibility. Such arrests shall be ordered via warrants that must contain the following: 1.- The grounds for the arrest; 2.- The place and date of issue; and 3.- The signature of the competent Judge. In order to execute the arrest, the warrant shall be delivered to an officer of the National Police or Judicial Police. 68. Article 174 of the aforementioned Code also provided that: [i]n the case of flagrante delicto any person may apprehend the perpetrator and take him or her to the competent judge or to a national or judicial police officer. 69. Additionally, the Commission notes that Article 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that one of the responsibilities of the Judicial Police is to “order and execute provisional detention of a person caught in flagrante delicto or about whom there are serious presumptions of responsibility and bring them to the respective examining magistrate within 48 hours of the order.” 70. The Inter-American Court has held that under the provisions of the Ecuadorean Constitution and Code of Criminal Procedure a court order was required for a detention to be legal in keeping with the American Convention, except where the person has been apprehended in flagrante delicto.67 71. In this case, there is no dispute that Mr. Montesinos was arrested on June 21, 1992. The IACHR notes that there is nothing in the case file demonstrating that at the time of his arrest there was a specific warrant for Mr. Montesinos that had been issued by a competent authority in accordance with the requirements of Article 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As for the possibility that he was caught in flagrante delicto, the State has not asserted these grounds nor are there elements suggesting that he was caught committing a crime when he was arrested in his car. 72. That said, the Commission notes that Article 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure “departs from the Constitutional standard” by establishing “a serious presumption of responsibility” as “additional grounds for an arrest without a warrant from the competent authority.”68 [… continuation] Costs. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114; I/A Court H.R. Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Merits. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35. 66 Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador adopted on January 15, 1978. 67 I/A Court H.R. Case of Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, paragraph 61; and Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, paragraph 103. 68 IACHR, Merits Report No. 66/01, Case 11.992, Dayra María Levoyer Jiménez, Ecuador, June 14, 2001, paragraph 36. 12