68. Therefore, the Commission concluded that the State had violated Articles 7(1), 7(2), 7(4) and 7(5) of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof. 69. The representative agreed “completely” with the Commission’s assertions in its Merits Report, and claimed that the detention also violated Article 2 of the American Convention, though he failed to present any arguments to that effect. 70. The State maintained that it was not true that no competent authority had ordered Mr. López’s arrest. Under the Organizational Law of the National Police –Law 222/93– it was lawful at the time of the events to restrict the freedom of movement of a police officer for a period of between five and thirty days. In this specific case, the State argued that the police disciplinary justice system had initiated an administrative investigation against Mr. López and ordered his arrest as a “safety measure” on May 19, 2000, by means of Order no. 62/2000, all pursuant to the Organizational Law of the National Police and its regulations in force at the time. It added that this preventive arrest was also provided for under Articles 14, 51, and 54 of the National Police’s Disciplinary Regulations. Consequently, the State concluded that the arrest warrant issued in the case of the alleged victim was compatible with “the written order from a competent authority” required under the Political Constitution. Therefore, it asked the Court to declare that the State had not violated Article 7(2) of the Convention. 71. The State added that Mr. López was investigated, charged and indicted under the administrative investigation entitled “Miguel Corrales, Hermes Rafael Saguier and others, for punishable acts committed against the existence of the State and the constitutional order.” As part of the investigation, the alleged victim appeared before the prosecutor assigned to the case to give an investigative statement on May 26, 2000, in the presence of his defense attorney. The prosecutor issued Decision No. 25 of May 27, 2000, in which he ordered Mr. López’s detention on criminal charges under Article 240 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The State noted that Mr. López again enjoyed his right to a defense and to be heard on May 31, 2000, when a hearing was held before a criminal court judge to consider the appropriateness of preventive detention in the case against him. B. Considerations of the Court B.1 General considerations with regard to the right to personal liberty 72. The Court holds that the essence of Article 7 of the American Convention is the protection of the liberty of the individual against any arbitrary or illegal interference by the State. 125 The Court has also held this article contains two kinds of regulations, one general, the other specific. The general one is contained in the first subparagraph: “[e]very person has the right to personal liberty and security”; while the specific one is contained in subparagraphs 2 to 7 and is composed of a series of guarantees that protect the right not to be deprived of liberty unlawfully (Art. 7(2)) or in an arbitrary manner (Art. 7(3)), to be informed of the reasons for the detention and the charges brought against him (Art. 7(4)), to judicial control of the deprivation of liberty and the reasonable length of time of the remand in custody (Art. 7(5)), to contest the lawfulness of the arrest (Art. 7(6)), and not to be detained for debt (Art. 7(7)). 125 Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 84, and Case of Aroca Palma et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 8, 2022. Series C No. 471, para. 78. 21