122. In this chapter the Court will analyze together the alleged violation of Ms. J.’s rights to 212 213 and to judicial guarantees due to the concurrence to protection of the home, personal liberty, of facts that may have given rise to these violations. The Court will also rule on the alleged violation of the principle of legality. 214 215 and 62(3) of the Convention, it 123. First, the Court recalls that, pursuant to Articles 33(b) only has to rule on the conformity of the State’s conduct in relation to the provisions of this instrument. Hence, when it refers to facts, acts or omissions of private individuals or non-State entities, it does so to the extent that these can be attributed to the State or because, the act of the State whose compatibility with the Convention must be determined has been executed with regard to such individuals or entities. Thus, the Court finds it essential to reiterate, as it has in other cases, 216 that it is not a criminal court that analyzes the criminal responsibility of the individual. Consequently, in this case, the Court will not rule on the alleged criminal responsibility Ms. J., or of any of the other persons who were processed or tried with her, because this is a matter for the ordinary criminal jurisdiction of Peru. 124. This Court has also indicated that, even though the State has the right and the obligation to guarantee its security and maintain public order, its powers are not unlimited, because, at all times, it has the obligation to apply procedures that are in keeping with the law and that respect the 217 218 Thus, Article 27(1) of the fundamental rights of every individual subject to its jurisdiction. 212 Article 7 of the Convention establishes that: “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 with deprivation of his liberty is entitled to recourse to a competent court in order that it may decide on the lawfulness of such threat, this remedy may not be restricted or abolished. The interested party or another person in his behalf is entitled to seek these remedies. […].” 213 Article 11(2) establishes that: “[n]o one may be the object of arbitrary or abusive interference with his private life, his family, his home, or his correspondence, or of unlawful attacks on his honor or reputation.” 214 Article 33 of the Convention stipulates that: “[t]he following organs shall have competence with respect to matters relating to the fulfillment of the commitments made by the States Parties to this Convention: (a) the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights […];" and (b)the Inter-American Court of Human Rights […]." 215 Article 62(3) of the Convention establishes that: “[t]he jurisdiction of the Court shall comprise all cases concerning the interpretation and application of the provisions of this Convention that are submitted to it, provided that the States Parties to the case recognize or have recognized such jurisdiction, whether by special declaration pursuant to the preceding paragraphs, or by a special agreement.” 216 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 134; Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Merits. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 37, and Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia, supra. Preliminary objection, merits and reparations. Judgment of November 30, 2012. Series C No. 259, para. 193. 217 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 174, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220, para. 87. 218 Article 27 of the Convention, on the suspension of guarantees, stipulates that: “1. In time of war, public danger, or other emergency that threatens the independence or security of a State Party, it may take measures derogating from its obligations under the present Convention to the extent and for the period of time strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with its other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination on the ground of race, color, sex, language, religion, or social origin. 2. The foregoing provision does not authorize any suspension of the following articles: Article 3 (Right to Juridical Personality), Article 4 (Right to Life), Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), Article 6 (Freedom from Slavery), Article 9 (Freedom from Ex Post Facto Laws), Article 12 (Freedom of Conscience and Religion), Article 17 (Rights of the Family), Article 18 (Right to a Name), Article 19 (Rights of the Child), Article 20 (Right to Nationality), and Article 23 (Right to Participate in Government), or of the judicial guarantees essential for the protection of such rights. 3. Any State Party availing itself of the right of suspension shall immediately inform 39