IV. LEGAL ANALYSIS A. Rights to personal liberty88 and to freedom from undue interference in private life and the family89 40. With regard to the right to personal liberty, the Inter-American Court of human rights (hereinafter the "Inter-American Court" or "Court") has consistently held in its case law that "regardless of the reason for [a] detention, insofar as it relates to a deprivation of liberty executed by a State Party to the Convention, [the] deprivation of liberty must be strictly in keeping with the relevant provisions of the American Convention and domestic law.”90 In that connection, for determining the legality of deprivation of physical liberty Article 7(2) of the Convention refers to the “reasons” and “conditions” established in the “constitution” or by a “law established pursuant thereto.” 91 Consequently, “if the domestic law is not observed, both materially and formally, when depriving an individual of his liberty, this deprivation will be unlawful and contrary to the American Convention.” 92 Furthermore, to determine the legality of a detention it is necessary to establish whether the material and formal requirements set down in the applicable domestic law were met beforehand. If they were not, then the detention will be unlawful, in violation of Article 7(2) of the Convention and, therefore, of Article 7(1) thereof, taken in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the same treaty.93 41. With respect to Article 7 (3) of the American Convention, the Court has held that “no one may be subjected to arrest or imprisonment for reasons and by methods which, although classified as legal, could be deemed to be incompatible with the respect for the fundamental rights of the individual because, among other things, they are unreasonable, unforeseeable or lacking in proportionality.” 94 In relation to arbitrariness of detention, the Court has referred to the findings of the Human Rights Committee, which held that arbitrariness “is not to be equated with ‘against the law’, but must be interpreted more broadly to include elements of inappropriateness, injustice, lack of predictability and due process of law.”95 42. As the Court has stated, Article 7 (6) of the Convention also protects the right of everyone deprived of their liberty to challenge the lawfulness of their detention before a judge, stipulating that such remedies “must not only exist formally by law, but must be effective; in other words, comply with the purpose of obtaining a prompt decision on the lawfulness of the arrest or detention.” 96 In this context “analysis by the competent authority of a judicial recourse that debates the legality of the imprisonment cannot be reduced to a mere formality, instead it must examine the reasons invoked by the claimant and make express statements regarding the same, according to the parameters established by the American Convention.” 97 The judicial authority's The pertinent portions of Article 7 of the American Convention provide: “Article 7. Right to personal liberty. 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. [...] 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.” 89 The pertinent portions of Article 11 of the American Convention provide: “Article 11. Right to Privacy. 1. Everyone has the right to have his honor respected and his dignity recognized. 2. No one may be the object of arbitrary or abusive interference with his private life, his family, or his correspondence, or of unlawful attacks on his honor or reputation.” 90 See, inter alia, I/A Court H.R., Case of Wong Ho Wing v. Peru, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of June 30, 2015, Series C. No. 297 (Wong Ho Wing Judgment), par. 235. 91 I/A Court H.R., Case of Galindo Cárdenas et al. v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of October 2, 2015, Series C. No. 301 (Galindo Cárdenas et al. Judgment), par. 181. 92 I/A Court H.R., Wong Ho Wing Judgment, par. 237. See also Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of November 27, 2008, Series C. No. 191 (Ticona Estrada Judgment), par. 57. 93 For a similar finding, see: I/A Court H.R., Case of Herrera Espinoza et al. v. Ecuador, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of September 1, 2016, Series C. No. 316, pars. 138-140. 94 I/A Court H.R., Case of Gangaram Panday v. Suriname, Judgment of January 21, 1994. Series C. No. 16, par. 47. 95 I/A Court H.R., Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of November 21, 2007, Series C. No. 170, par. 92. 96 I/A Court H.R., Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C. No. 289 (Espinoza Gonzáles Judgment), par. 135. See also, Case of Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of June 24, 2005, Series C. No. 129, par. 97; Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of November 23, 2010, Series C. No. 218, par. 129. 97 I/A Court H.R., Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of February 1, 2006, Series C. No. 141 (López Álvarez Judgment), par. 96. 88 12