97 comply with its general obligation to adopt the required domestic law provisions under Article 2 of the Convention. XI VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 7 AND 8(2) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION, IN RELATION TO ARTICLES 1(1) AND 2 THEREOF (RIGHT TO PERSONAL LIBERTY AND RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL) 190. The Inter-American Commission did not raise a violation of Article 7 of the American Convention or Article 8(2) thereof. 191. Arguments of the alleged victim’s representatives a) Mr. Palamara was arbitrarily deprived of his liberty both for the crime of disobedience and breach of military duties and for the crime of contempt. The detention was ordered in both cases by Naval Prosecutors “who lacked jurisdiction,” in violation of Article 7(2) of the American Convention. The measures of preventive detention against Mr. Palamara were reviewed by a body lacking the required independence and impartiality, thus in violation of Article 7(5), since Mr. Palamara was detained by naval prosecutors who had conducted the relevant investigations prior to the detention and could also act in the post-detention stage by issuing an indictment; b) Mr. Palamara “was placed in preventive detention without any kind of assessment of the need for this State-coercion measure.” The resolution by which Mr. Palamara was charged does not state the reasons why it was necessary for him to be held in remand custody or the reasons why this serious impairment of his rights was actually necessary; c) under the American Convention, any deprivation of a person’s liberty must involve a reasoned, necessary decision made in a democratic society, and mere reference to procedural rules is not sufficient therefor. Under Chile’s procedural rules, preventive detention applies as a result of the writ of indictment. The set of rules by which personal liberty is governed throughout a military criminal proceeding in Chile does not clearly define that detention shall only apply in exceptional cases. Furthermore, the procedural provisions that govern release from prison and which were applied in the proceedings against Mr. Palamara establish detention as the rule during the course of a criminal proceeding, and the only requirement to be satisfied in ordering detention is that there be well-founded reasons to believe that the defendant was actually involved in the commission of the crime. Preventive detention is only excluded for minor offenses; d) in the case of Mr. Palamara, it is obvious that the orders for his preventive detention were not justified, as the sentences he received did not entail confinement. Both judgments granted him the benefit of suspended pardon.The State violated Mr. Palamara’s right to personal liberty due to the