35 132. It is clear that, contravening the provisions of Article 7.2 of the Convention, the four youths were arrested although the causes or conditions established by the Guatemalan Constitution, in force since January 14, 1986, were not present. Article 6 of the Constitution establishes that a person may only be deprived of his liberty “under an order issued according to the law by a competent judicial authority” or because he is caught in fraganti while committing a crime or offence. Neither of these two grounds was present in this case. 133. Moreover, they were not “brought before the competent judicial authority within six hours”, as the said Article 6 of the Guatemalan Constitution orders. What is more, this article expressly establishes that those arrested “may not be subject to any other authority”. If we compare the facts of this case with this basic procedural regulation, it is clear that it was not complied with. 134. Consequently, we can conclude that neither the material nor the formal aspect of the legal rules for detention were observed in the detention of the four youths. 135. The European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “European Court”) has remarked that the emphasis on the promptness of judicial control of arrests is of special importance for the prevention of arbitrary arrests. Prompt judicial intervention allows the detection and prevention of threats against life or serious illtreatment that violate fundamental guarantees contained in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Liberties (hereinafter “European Convention”)21 and the American Convention. The protection of both the physical liberty of the individual and his personal safety are in play, in a context where the absence of guarantees may result in the subversion of the rule of law and deprive those arrested of the minimum legal protection. In this respect, the European Court particularly stressed that the failure to acknowledge the arrest of an individual is a complete negation of these guarantees and a very serious violation of the article in question. 136. Consequently, this Court concludes that the State violated Article 7 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Article 1.1 of the Convention, to the detriment of Henry Giovanni Contreras, Federico Clemente Figueroa Túnchez, Julio Roberto Caal Sandoval and Jovito Josué Juárez Cifuentes. IX VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 4 (Right to Life) 137. In the application, the Commission maintained that Guatemala had violated Article 4 of the Convention because two National Police Force agents murdered Henry Giovanni Contreras, Federico Clemente Figueroa Túnchez, Julio Roberto Caal Sandoval, Jovito Josué Juárez Cifuentes and Anstraum Aman Villagrán Morales. The Commission emphasized that “[t]he right to life cannot be annulled” and that “[t]he violation of that norm [...] has not been the object of any corrective”. 21. Cf. Eur. Court HR, Aksoy v. Turkey judgment of 18 December 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI, p. 2282, § 76 and Brogan and Others Judgment of 29 November 1988, Series A no. 145-B, p. 32, § 58 and Eur. Court HR, Kurt v. Turkey judgment of 25 May 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III, p. 1185, §§ 123-124.