73. In the instant case, both the Commission and the representative have alleged the violation of Articles 7(1), 7(2), 7(4) and 7(5) of the American Convention. The Court recalls that any violation of subparagraphs 2 to 7 of Article 7 of the Convention necessarily entails the violation of Article 7(1) thereof. 126 In relation to the provisions of subparagraph 2 of Article 7 of the Convention, the Court has held that deprivation of liberty is illegal when the material and formal aspects of the applicable domestic legal order are not observed. 127 The Court has explained that the restriction of the right to personal liberty “is only viable when it occurs based on the causes and conditions previously established by the Constitution or by the laws enacted in conformity with the latter (substantive aspect) and, also, strictly subject to the procedures that they objectively define (formal aspect).” 128 Furthermore, regarding the requirement of lawfulness and the authority of the police to arrest an individual, the Court understands that it should be recalled that improper action by the law enforcement agencies represents “one of the main threats to the right to personal liberty.” 129 Therefore, the regulations which determine the authority of police to prevent and to investigate crime must include clear and specific references to parameters that prevent detentions that are arbitrary or contrary to constitutional mandates. 130 74. Moreover, in order to avoid illegal or arbitrary detentions, Article 7 of the Convention establishes a requirement in paragraphs 4 and 5 to give notice of the reasons for the detention and for judicial control of it. The first "refers to two guarantees for the person who is being detained: (i) oral or written notice of the reasons for the detention, and (ii) written notification of the charges.” 131 Information on the reasons for the detention should be given when it is made, 132 which constitutes a mechanism to avoid unlawful or arbitrary detentions at the very moment of the deprivation of liberty and, also, guarantees the person’s right of defense 133 and means that the agent who makes the arrest must inform the person concerned “in simple language, free of technical terms, of the essential legal grounds and facts on which the arrest is based.” 134 When it is alleged that this guarantee has not been complied with, which signifies the assertion that an act has not been performed, the State has the burden of proving the contrary. 135 The second, judicial control, is to constitute an effective safeguard against illegal or 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 Aroca Palma et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 79. 127 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, supra, para. 57, and Case of Aroca Palma et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 80. 128 Cf. Case of Gangaram Panday v. Surinam. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 21, 1994. Series C No. 16, para. 47, and Case of Valencia Campos et al. v. Bolivia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 18, 2022. Series C No. 469, para. 117. 129 Cf. Case of Servellón García et al. v. Honduras. Judgment of September 21, 2006. Series C No. 152, para. 86, and Case of Valencia Campos et al. v. Bolivia, supra, para. 117. 130 Cf. Case of Fernández Prieto and Tumbeiro v. Argentina. Merits and reparations. Judgment of September 1, 2020. Series C No. 411, para. 90, and Case of Valencia Campos et al. v. Bolivia, supra, para. 117. 131 Cf. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220, para. 106, and Case of Aroca Palma et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 81. 132 Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras, supra, para. 82, and Case of Aroca Palma et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 81. 133 Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras, supra, para. 82, and Case of Azul Rojas Marín et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 12, 2020. Series C No. 402, para. 131. 134 Cf. Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez Case. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 73, and Case of Dial et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago, supra, para. 52. 135 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, supra, para. 71, and Case of Dial et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago, supra, para. 52. 126 22