103. With respect to those rights, the State has the obligations set out in Article 1(1) of the Convention to respect and guarantee their exercise. In addition, Article 2 of the Convention obligates the States Parties to adopt, in accordance with the provisions of its Constitution and those of the Convention, the legislative or other measures that are necessary to give effect to the rights and liberties protected by the treaty. 125 That obligation implies the adoption of measures in two senses. On the one hand, the elimination of any norms and practices that would lead to a violation of the guarantees established in the Convention,126 either because they ignore those rights or liberties or because they obstruct their exercise.127 On the other hand, the duty to issue norms and the development of practices that lead to the effective observance of such guarantees. 128 104. On the basis of the foregoing, and in the more specific guidelines that will be expressed later, the Court will analyze the facts in the case and the allegations of the parties and the Commission. It will examine: i) the lawfulness of the initial detentions of the alleged victims; ii) whether the preventive deprivations of liberty to which those persons were submitted were arbitrary and affected the presumption of innocence, and iii) the right to appeal the detention. The Court will then offer its conclusion. B.1 Initial detentions 105. The facts of the case demonstrate that: a) Belkis and María Angélica González were detained on November 23, 1998 in their home by means of a decision adopted by police authorities, based on their presumption that the detainees had been involved in an unlawful act, the homicide of Mrs. C.F.; b) Fernando González was detained the same day by police authorities, when he went to the police station with a vehicle mentioned in the events to which his daughters were linked, and c) Wilmer Antonio Barliza González, Luis Guillermo González and Olimpiades González were detained on January 28, 1999 after an exchange of shots by the police, who arrived at a residence where they found them and also two firearms that the authorities thought to be related to the investigations into the homicide of C.F., believing also that there existed evidence to presume the participation of the three detainees in that criminal act (supra paras. 48 and 49). 106. The police stated that they based the detentions described in sections a) and c) of the previous paragraph on Article 45 of the Law of Amparo and on Article 75 of the CCP and the section b) to Articles 71 and 75 G of the CCP (supra paras. 30, 31, 36 and Cf. Caso Gangaram Panday v. Suriname, para. 50 and Case of Villarroel Merino et al. v. Ecuador, para. 142. 125 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 207 and Case of the Buzos Miskitos (Lemoth Morris et al.) v. Honduras. Judgment of August 31, 2021. Series C No. 432, para. 45. 126 Cf. Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, para. 113 and Case of the Buzos Miskitos (Lemoth Morris et al.) v. Honduras, para. 45. 127 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru, para. 207 and Case of the Buzos Miskitos (Lemoth Morris et al.) v. Honduras, para. 45. 128 29