57 have the possibility of filing a simple and effective remedy109 on his own, such that he could assert his right to personal liberty and possibly avoid the violation of his rights to humane treatment and to life (infra 121 to 124). As this Court has pointed out, this person was “in the power of agents of the State and, therefore, the latter was under the obligation to create the necessary conditions for any remedy to attain effective results,”110 thus breaching Article 7(6) in combination with Article 25, both of the American Convention, to the detriment of Juan Humberto Sánchez. 86. This Court established that Juan Humberto Sánchez was detained by the Honduran army in at least one clandestine detention center, thus violating Article 7 of the Convention (supra 70.8). In this case, if Juan Humberto Sánchez was detained because he was a collaborator of the Salvadoran guerrilla and because he was allegedly “dangerous” (supra 70.16), the detainee should have been ensured the guarantees of any State where the rule of law prevails and through a legal proceeding. This Court has pointed out before that while the State has the right and the obligation to guarantee its security and to maintain public order, its power is not unlimited, as it has the duty, at all times, of applying procedures that are in accordance with the Law and that respect the fundamental rights of all individuals under its jurisdiction111 and, in this regard, it must conduct its actions “within limits and according to procedures that preserve both public safety and the fundamental rights of the human person.”112 87. With respect to the detention of the stepfather of the alleged victim, Juan José Vijil Hernández, it has been proven that he was taken from his community to the capital city without being able to inform his next of kin and that he was detained for at least two days, during which he was taken to the Office of the Attorney General to render a statement on the activities of his stepson, Juan Humberto Sánchez (supra 70.13, 70.14 and 70.15). In light of the above, the Court concludes that the detention of Juan José Vijil Hernández was illegal and arbitrary, in violation of Article 7 of the American Convention. 88. As a consequence of the above, the Court finds that the State breached Article 7(1), Article 7(2), Article 7(3), Article 7(4), Article 7(5), Article 7(6) and the latter in combination with Articles 25 and Article 1(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, to the detriment of Juan Humberto Sánchez, and Article 7 in combination with Article 1(1) to the detriment of Juan José Vijil Hernández. IX VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 IN COMBINATION WITH ARTICLE 1(1) (RIGHT TO HUMANE TREATMENT) Pleadings of the representatives of the alleged victim 109 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.). Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 165. 110 Cf. Bámaca Velásquez Case, supra note 25, para. 194; and Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.), supra note 109, para. 167. 111 Cf. Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. Case, supra note 4, para. 101; Bámaca Velásquez Case, supra note 25, para. 174; and Durand and Ugarte Case, supra note 104, para. 69. 112 Cf. Bámaca Velásquez Case, supra note 25, para. 143; Durand and Ugarte Case, supra note 104, para. 69; and Castillo Petruzzi et al. Case, supra note 107, paras. 89 and 204.