103 214. In the light of the above, the analysis of the preventive prevention orders issued against Mr. Palamara-Iribarne in the two military criminal proceedings instituted against him shows that the State violated Articles 7(1), 7(2) and 8(2) of the American Convention to his detriment. 215. Moreover, Article 7(3) of the Convention requires as a condition that no one be subject to arbitrary arrest or imprisonment, i.e. arrest or imprisonment ordered for reasons and through methods which —even if legal— may be deemed incompatible with a respect for the fundamental rights of a person because, among other things, they are unreasonable, impossible to anticipate or out of proportion.214 216. In previous decisions the Court found that those rulings of domestic bodies that may impair human rights, such as the right to personal liberty, and which are not duly substantiated, are arbitrary.215 In the instant case, the orders for preventive detention issued in both military criminal proceedings, which were analyzed in the preceding paragraphs, are without reasoned and objective legal substantiation regarding the applicability of said precautionary measure and proving the need therefor, pursuant to the legal and conventional requirements that allowed such measure to be taken and in accordance with the facts of the case. Accordingly, the State violated Articles 7(3) and 8(2) of the Convention, to the detriment of Mr. Palamara-Iribarne, by depriving him of his liberty based on arbitrary orders, in disregard of the principles of nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege praevia, need and proportionality. 217. The Court finds it important to note that the State’s failure to meet the necessary requirements to restrict the personal liberty of Mr. Palamara-Iribarne that were listed above is the result of both the legal provisions applied in the instant case and the manner in which such provisions were interpreted by the military authorities involved in the case. * * * 218. Under Article 7(5) of the Convention, any person detained is entitled to have such detention promptly reviewed by a judicial authority as a means of adequate control to prevent cases of arbitrary and illegal detention. Prompt judicial review is a measure aimed at avoiding arbitrariness or illegality in detentions, taking due consideration of the fact that, in a State in which the Rule of Law prevails, the judge must guarantee the rights of the person held in custody, authorize precautionary or coercive measures if strictly necessary and, in general, make sure that the accused is treated in a manner that is consistent with the presumption of innocence.216 214 Cf. Case of Acosta-Calderón, supra note 189, para. 57; Case of Tibi, supra note 206, para. 98; and Case of the Gómez-Paquiyauri brothers, supra note 211, para. 83. 215 Cf. Case of YATAMA, supra note 5, para. 152. Similarly, cf. García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], No. 30544/96, § 26, ECHR 1999-I; and Eur. Court H.R., Case of H. v. Belgium, Judgment of November 30, 1987, Series A No. 127-B, para. 53. 216 Cf. Case of Acosta-Calderón, supra note 189, para. 75; Case of Tibi, supra note 206, para. 114;