37 5. Any person detained shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to be released without prejudice to the continuation of the proceedings. His release may be subject to guarantees to assure his appearance for trial. 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. In States Parties whose laws provide that anyone who believes himself to be threatened with deprivation of his liberty is entitled to recourse to a competent court in order that it may decide on the lawfulness of such threat, this remedy may not be restricted or abolished. The interested party or another person in his behalf is entitled to seek these remedies. […] 81. Peru has acknowledged that, in the instant case, “the [p]olice agents of the Peruvian State did in fact violate the [alleged] victims right to personal liberty, as [they] were detained without being detected in the act of committing a crime and without a court order, and that they therefore acted in an arbitrary manner.” In this regard, it has been proven (supra paras. 67.e to 67.k) that Rafael Samuel and Emilio Moisés Gómez Paquiyauri were detained by agents of the Peruvian National Police, without explaining the reasons of their detention or the charges against them, that they were not brought before a competent authority and that their lifeless bodies were taken to the San Juan Hospital approximately one hour after their detention. The Court will now establish whether said facts violate the provisions set forth in Article 7 of the Convention. 82. This Court has indicated that the protection of freedom safeguards “both the physical liberty of the individual and his personal safety, in a context where the absence of guarantees may result in the subversion of the rule of law and deprive those detained of the minimum legal protection.”73 83. Regarding to the detentions, the Court has said, in connection with paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 7 of the Convention, regarding prohibition of unlawful or arbitrary detentions or arrests, that: [a]ccording to the first of these regulatory provisions, no one shall be deprived of his personal liberty except for reasons, cases or circumstances specifically established by law (material aspect) but, also, under strict conditions established beforehand by law (formal aspect). In the second provision, we have a condition according to which no one shall be subject to arrest or imprisonment for causes or methods that – although qualified as legal – may be considered incompatible regarding for the fundamental rights of the individual, because they are, among other matters, unreasonable, unforeseeable or out of proportion.74 84. Article 2.20.g of the 1979 Political Constitution of the State of Peru, in force at the time of the facts of the instant case, established that “[e]very person has the right: [...to] personal liberty and safety. Therefore: [...n]o one may be detained 73 See Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 5, para. 64; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez, supra note 15, para. 77; Case of Bámaca Velásquez, supra note 68, para. 141; and Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.), supra note 68, para. 135. 74 See Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 5, para. 65; Case of Bulacio, supra note 6, para. 125; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez, supra note 15, para. 78; Case of Bámaca Velásquez, supra note 68, para. 139; and Durand and Ugarte Case, supra note 27, para. 85.