legal “evidence of the investigation” and respectful of human rights and due process and were “adjusted to the law” and confirmed judicially. 92. Length of the preventive deprivations of liberty. – The State also denied responsibility with respect to the length of the preventive deprivations of liberty. It argued that, in the first place, at 10 months or less according to the case, they could not be considered unreasonable or disproportionate since during this lapse the criminal proceedings continued. In the second place, it pointed out that, after the presentation of the remedies and requests of the alleged victims, the decisions to maintain them in preventive detention were reviewed in every case.99 Therefore, it claimed that it had complied with the review of the measure. 93. Right to appeal the detention. – Venezuela asserted that, as regards the right to appeal the detention, remedies against the measures of preventive detention were exercised, that they were duly resolved and that the fact that the claims of the alleged victims had not been accepted in every case does not imply that the remedies were not effective. It emphasized that, in any event, in the cases of Olimpiades González and Luis Guillermo González, their release was ordered when their appeal was resolved. The State maintained, therefore, that Article 7(6) of the Convention was not infringed. 100 B) Considerations of the Court 94. The Court has held that the essential content of Article 7 of the Convention is the protection of an individual’s liberty against any unlawful or arbitrary interference of the State101 The Court has also held that this article is regulated both generally and specifically. The general part is found in 7(1), while the specific is set out in 7(2) through 7(7). Any violation of these clauses necessarily results in the violation of Article 7(1) of the Convention.102 95. The illegality of a deprivation of liberty violates Article 7(2) of the Convention and occurs when the applicable domestic legal order is not observed.103 The Court has explained that restricting the right to personal liberty “is only permissible for the reasons The State stressed that Belkis González, María Angélica González and Fernando González appealed the order of their detention on January 8, 1999 and that the appeal was denied on January 28. It also noted that on August 2, 1999 they requested an “alternate precautionary measure” that was denied by a decision on August 6, which confirmed the preventive deprivation of liberty. Venezuela also pointed out that, on March 5, 1999, Olimpiades González and Luis Guillermo González appealed the order of detention of February 12, and that their request was resolved on April 21, 1999 with the ordering of their release. It indicated, lastly, that the deprivation of liberty of Wilmer Barliza was confirmed and that on August 8, 1999, the request of an alternate precautionary measure was reviewed and denied, confirming the preventive detention. 99 The State did not include, with respect to the right to appeal the detention, an express reference to Article 25(1) of the Convention. 100 101 Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 84 and Case of Villarroel Merino et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 24, 2021. Series C No. 430, para. 84. 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 Villarroel Merino et al. v. Ecuador, para. 84. 102 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, para. 57 and Case of Guerrero, Molina et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 3, 2021. Series C No. 424, para. 104. In the same sense, Case of Villarroel Merino et al. v. Ecuador, para. 84. 103 25