- 84 - 227. The State acknowledged responsibility for the violation of the right to personal liberty of the eleven women victims in this case, owing to their deprivation of liberty and the failure to notify the reasons for their detention, as well as the facts contained in paragraphs 122 to 307 of the Merits Report presented by the Commission, which describe the circumstances of the detentions. B. Considerations of the Court 228. In this chapter, the Court will analyze jointly the alleged violations of the personal liberty and the judicial guarantees of the eleven women victims in this case, in the context of the preliminary inquiries that were opened following their detention, owing to the similarity of the facts that may have given rise to these violations. 229. The Court has established that Article 7 of the American Convention contains two very different types of rules, one general and the other specific. The general rule is to be found in the first paragraph: “Every person has the right to personal liberty and security.” While, the specific rule is composed of a series of guarantees that protect the right not to be deprived of liberty unlawfully (Article 7(2)) or arbitrarily (Article 7(3)), to be informed of the reasons for the detention and the charges against him or her (Article 7(4)), to judicial control of the deprivation of liberty (Article 7(5)) and to contest the lawfulness of the detention (Article 7(6)). Any violation of paragraphs 2 to 7 of Article 7 of the Convention necessarily results in the violation of Article 7(1) thereof.320 230. Article 7(2) of the American Convention establishes that “[n]o one shall be deprived of his physical liberty except for the reasons and under the conditions established beforehand by the Constitution of the State Party concerned or by a law established pursuant thereto.” This Court has indicated that owing to the reference to the Constitution of the State Party or to a law established “pursuant thereto,” examination of the observance of Article 7(2) of the Convention entails an analysis of compliance with the requirements established as specifically as possible and “beforehand” in the said laws as regards the “reasons” and “conditions” for the deprivation of physical liberty. If both the formal and material requirements of domestic law are not met when depriving a person of their liberty, this deprivation will be unlawful and contrary to the American Convention, in light of Article 7(2).321 Consequently, the Court must verify whether the detentions of the eleven women victims in this case were made in accordance with the laws of Mexico. 231. Regarding the arbitrariness referred to in Article 7(3) of the Convention, the Court has established that no one may be subjected to detention or imprisonment based on reasons and methods that – even though they are classified as legal – may be considered incompatible with respect for the fundamental rights of the individual because, among other matters, they are unreasonable, unpredictable or disproportionate. 322 Moreover, the domestic law, the applicable procedure and the corresponding general express or tacit principles must also be compatible with Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 54, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 25, 2018. Series C No. 354, paras. 351 and 352. 320 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 57, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 25, 2018. Series C No. 354, para. 354. 321 Cf. Case of Gangaram Panday v. Suriname. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 21, 1994. Series C No. 16, para. 47, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 25, 2018. Series C No. 354, para. 355. 322