(i) oral or written notice of the reasons for the detention, and (ii) written notification of the charges.” 64 Information on the reasons for the detention should be given when it is made. 65 The second, judicial control, is to constitute an effective safeguard against illegal or arbitrary detentions and must occur “without delay.” 66 82. In analyzing the specific case, the Court notes that Article 24 of the Political Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador, adopted in 1998 and in force at the time of the events, established the following: To ensure due process, the following basic guarantees must be observed, without prejudice to others established by the Constitution, international instruments, laws or jurisprudence: […] 4. Every person, upon being detained, shall have the right to clearly understand the reasons for their detention, and the identity of the authority that ordered it, the agents carrying it out, and those responsible for the respective interrogation. […] 6. No one shall be deprived of their liberty except by written order of a competent judge, in the cases, for the length of time, and with the formalities established by law, except in cases of in flagrante delicto, in which they may not be held in custody without trial for more twenty-four hours. Disciplinary arrests established by law within law enforcement agencies are an exception. No one may be held incommunicado. 67 83. According to the proven facts, Joffre Aroca was detained by police officers in the early hours of February 27, 2001. There is no evidence to suggest that the arrest was preceded by a court order or that it was a case of in flagrante delicto. Furthermore, the police officers neither filled out an arrest report, nor called it in over the police radio communication system. 84. According to the statements of two of the people who were with Mr. Aroca Palma on the day of the events, he was detained because he refused to show the officers his identity document, which would suggest that the police officers overstepped their authority. Under the regulations in effect cited by the State, they did not have the authority to make an arrest for identification purposes. 85. At any event, according to the statements of the people who were with the alleged victim on the day of the events, the officers did not explain why they were detaining him. Neither is there any evidence to suggest that Joffre Aroca immediately appeared before a judge. Consequently, the detention was neither lawful nor complied with the safeguards regarding notification of the reasons for the detention and judicial control. 86. Based on the above, the Court concludes that the State violated the right to personal liberty of Mr. Aroca Palma, established in paragraphs 1, 2, 4 and 5 of Article 7 of the American Convention, read in conjunction with the obligation to respect human rights without discrimination enshrined in Article 1(1) thereof. B.2. Right to life 87. The Court has established that the right to life plays a fundamental role in the American Convention, because it is the essential prerequisite for the exercise of the other rights. Respect for Article 4, in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention, not only supposes that no one may be deprived of their life arbitrarily (negative obligation), but also requires States to Cf. 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. 106, and Case of Guerrero, Molina et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 105. 65 Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras, supra, para. 82, and Case of Guerrero, Molina et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 105. 66 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, supra, para. 57, and Case of Guerrero, Molina et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 105. 67 Cf. Political Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador, published on August 11, 1998 and repealed by the Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador of 2008. Available at: https://www.acnur.org/fileadmin/Documentos/BDL/2002/0061.pdf. 64 18