68 B. Rights to Personal Liberty, Personal Integrity, and Honor and Dignity (Articles 7.1 and 7.3,307 5.1 and 11), in connection with Article 1.1 of the American Convention 237. Article 7 of the American Convention establishes the right to personal liberty and the guarantees which must be observed in cases of deprivation of liberty.308 Its provisions set limits on the branches of government expressly prohibiting both illegal and arbitrary detentions.309 238. The Commission considers that a detention is illegal and arbitrary when it does not adhere to the motives and formalities established by law; when it is executed without compliance with the standards required by law; and when it is conducted for purposes other than those provided for and required by law.310 The right to personal liberty also encompasses several guarantees during a detention, including, the right to be informed of the reasons for the detention;311 to be notified promptly of the charges;312 and to be brought before a judge immediately when the detention has been carried out without an arrest warrant.313 239. In the matter that concerns us, the petitioners claim that the right to personal liberty of Ms. Naranjo, Mosquera and Yarce was infringed on November 12, 2002, when they were illegally and arbitrarily detained in a joint operation between the Army and National Police Force. The IACHR notes that this detention occurred in the context of the state of internal unrest decreed by President Alvaro Uribe on August 12, 2002, which was still in effect at the time. They contend that they were detained unlawfully; without any court-ordered arrest warrant; without being informed of the reason for their detention; and that they were held without any basis for nine days. The State argues that their detention was based on information provided from neighborhood residents of the sector; that the defendants were placed in the custody of the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney for the alleged offense of rebellion; and that on May 22, 2003, the investigation was closed for lack of merit in the charges against the defendants. 240. The IACHR, therefore, must examine whether or not the detention of Ms. Mosquera, Naranjo and Yarce was conducted in keeping with the international principles described. 241. Article 28 of the Political Constitution of Colombia provides that no person may be detained “except under a written warrant from a competent judicial authority, through formal procedures established by law and for reasons previously defined in the law.” Article 214 of the same 307 The pertinent part of Article 7 of the American Convention provides in its text: 1. Every person has the right to personal liberty and security. 3. No one shall be subject to arbitrary arrest or imprisonment. 308 IACHR, Case 10.738, Admissibility and Merits. Carlos Augusto Rodríguez Vera et al (“Palace of Justice”), Colombia (2011), par. 406; IACHR, Report No. 53/01, Case 11.565, Ana, Beatriz and Celia González Pérez, Mexico, April 4, 2001, par. 22. 309 IACHR, Case 10.738, Admissibility and Merits, Carlos Augusto Rodríguez Vera et al (“Palace of Justice”), Colombia (2011), par. 406; IACHR, Report No. 53/01, Case 11.565, Ana, Beatriz and Celia González Pérez, Mexico, April 4, 2001, par. 22. 310 IACHR, Report No. 35/08 (admissibility and merits), Antonio Ferreira Braga, July 18, 2008, par. 68. 311 IA Court of HR, Case of Tibi v. Ecuador, Judgment September 7, 2004, Series C. No. 114, par. 109. 312 IA Court of HR, Case of Bulacio v. Argentina, Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, par. 128. 313 IACHR, Note of referral of the Case to the Court and Report on the Merits of Case 12.661 “Néstor José and Luiz Uzcátegui et al”, October 22, 2010, par. 223.