38 without a written and reasoned order by a judge or without being detected by the police authorities in the act of committing a crime.” 85. Even though it was argued that, at the time of the facts, there was a state of emergency in the Constitutional Province of El Callao, pursuant to which said right had been suspended, the Court has pointed out before that suspension of constitutional liberties cannot exceed what is strictly necessary and that “any action on the part of the public authorities that goes beyond those limits, which must be specified with precision in the decree promulgating the state of emergency, would also be unlawful”.75 In this regard, the limitations imposed on acts by the State answer to “the general requirement that in any state of emergency there be appropriate means to control the measures taken, so that they are proportionate to the needs and do not exceed the strict limits imposed by the Convention or derived from it.”76 Therefore, the emergency cannot be considered a justification in face of acts such as those examined here. 86. In the instant case, Rafael Samuel and Emilio Moisés Gómez Paquiyauri were not caught in fraganti, but rather detained as they were walking along the street, without constituting the causes and conditions set forth in the Peruvian legal system to authorize detention without a court order; furthermore, they were not immediately brought before a judge. This Court has pointed out that situations such as that described above do not respect due legal process,77 as they disregard the detainee’s right to legal protection and they omit judicial oversight. 87. Based on the above, the court finds that Rafael Samuel and Emilio Moisés Gómez Paquiyauri were unlawfully detained, which violated Article 7(2) of the American Convention. 88. The Court has also deemed proven that the detention of Rafael Samuel and Emilio Moisés Gómez Paquiyauri took place within the framework of a systematic practice of human rights violations, including extra-legal executions of persons suspected of belonging to armed groups, carried out by State agents following orders of military and police commanders. This type of operation is incompatible regarding for basic rights, including the presumption of innocence, existence of a court order to conduct a detention and the obligation to bring the detainees before a competent judicial authority.78 89. The Court also notes that, in the instant case, detention of the alleged victims was arbitrary. Said detention was aggravated by the fact that the detainees were tortured and, finally, killed, in the framework of the so-called “anti-terrorist struggle,” in face of the criminal acts that had taken place that day, in which the Gómez Paquiyauri brothers were not involved (supra para. 67.e to 67.k). On the 75 Habeas Corpus in Emergency Situations (arts. 27(2), 25(1) and 7(6) American Convention Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-8/87 del 30 de enero de 1987. Series A No. 8, para. 38; Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (arts. 27(2), 25 and 8 American Convention Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 dated October 6, 1987. Series A No. 9, para. 36; see Case of Cantoral Benavides, supra note 26, para. 72; and Caso Castillo Petruzzi et al. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 109. 76 Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency, supra note 75, para. 21; and see Caso Castillo Petruzzi et al., supra note 75, para. 109. 77 See Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 5, para. 67; and Case of Bulacio, supra note 6, para. 127. 78 See Case of Bulacio, supra note 6, para. 137.