Luis and Carlos Eduardo being discovered committing a crime in flagranti, as established by Venezuelan legislation. The Commission added that the Law on the Protection of Children and Adolescents of Venezuela 208 establishes that the imprisonment of a child must be exceptional, that only the Investigative Police may summon or arrest an adolescent suspected of an offense under investigation, immediately informing the Public Prosecutor, and that when “an adolescent is apprehended by members of other police forces, those officers must immediately inform the Investigative Police so that it can immediately inform the Public Prosecutor, something that was not taken into account in this case.” The Commission further alleged that the State had not demonstrated that the brothers Carlos and Luis Enrique Uzcátegui were registered on the day of their arrest or that the place, time and circumstances of the arrest were recorded, or that they were duly informed of the reasons for their arrest. Finally, the Commission pointed out that Carlos Eduardo and Luis Enrique Uzcátegui were not brought before a judge or any other official competent to exercise judicial functions, in accordance with Venezuela’s domestic law. 145. The representatives agreed with the views expressed by the Commission and, in relation to Carlos Eduardo, pointed out that despite his status as a minor, there was no separation between adults and adolescents in the place of detention. They added that the State was responsible for the violation of Article 7(6) of the American Convention since the arrests of Luis Enrique and Carlos Eduardo Uzcátegui were not recorded in the incident book at Police Headquarters, and consequently “neither one of the brothers had an opportunity, either on their own or through others, to obtain a simple and effective remedy before a judge or competent court that could rule on the illegality of the detention.” The representatives added that during the time the two brothers were at Police Headquarters, both were held incommunicado. 146. The State argued that the actions by the police forces of the State of Falcón “complied with the law and that the transfer to the police headquarters was undertaken in order to protect the physical integrity of Luis and Carlos Eduardo Uzcátegui, and so that they could make the relevant statements, since there was also a possibility of their complicity with Néstor Uzcátegui”209. B. - Considerations of the Court 147. Having regard to its case law on this matter, the Court 210 shall examine the alleged violations of Article 7 of the Convention 211 in the following order: the alleged 208 Cf. Law for the Protection of Children and Adolescents, Special Official Gazette N° 5.266 of October 2, 1998. Articles 652 and 653. 209 Brief of the State of February 25, 2008 in the proceeding before the Commission (Evidence file volume 2, pages 1242 to 1243). 210 Cf. Case of Barrios Family v. Venezuela, para. 53 and 54 and 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. Also see Case "Juvenile Reeducation Institute " v. Paraguay. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 228. 211 Article 7 of the American Convention states: “1. Every person has the right to personal liberty and security. 2. No 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. 3. No one shall be subject to arbitrary arrest or imprisonment. 4. Anyone who is detained shall be informed of the reasons for his detention and shall be promptly notified of the charge or charges against him. 5. Any person detained shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to be released without prejudice to the continuation of the proceedings. His release may be subject to guarantees to assure his appearance for trial. 6. Anyone who is deprived of his liberty shall be entitled to recourse to a competent court, in order that the court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his arrest or detention and order his release if the arrest or detention is unlawful. In States Parties whose laws provide that anyone who believes himself to be threatened 37