National Constitution and the Organizational Law and Disciplinary Regulations of the National Police in force at the time of the events. 80. Having established the above, the Court recalls that the article of the Paraguayan Constitution in question expressly established that all detentions –except in the case of people caught in the act of committing an offense– had to be carried out by means of a “written order from a competent authority.” Likewise, according to the provisions of Article 51 of the National Police’s Disciplinary Regulations, in cases of serious misconduct “the superior officer on duty may order the preventive arrest of the offender and refer the case, through the appropriate channels, to the Directorate of Police Justice.” Article 24 of the Regulations required that the “document ordering the detention” (i) stipulate the length of time that the suspect would be held; (ii) clearly explain the reason for the action; (iii) specify the place where the detainee would be held; and (iv) state whether or not it was “with prejudice to the service.” 81. The Court notes that Mr. López’s detention was ordered by the alleged victim’s hierarchical superior as part of the police disciplinary procedure permitted under the disciplinary regulations in force at the time. However, Mr. López was detained without a prior written order from a competent authority, as required by the Constitution of Paraguay and the disciplinary regulations themselves. In the body of evidence it is stated that, on the day of the arrest, Inspector (Comisario) J.B.P. sent a memorandum to Metropolitan Police Headquarters informing his superiors that Mr. López and six other officers had been arrested and were being held in custody due to their alleged involvement in the “attempted attack on the residence of the Minister of the Interior, W.B.” 150 The Court notes that not only was the memorandum not sent prior to the arrest, but also was merely informative in nature, was not required under the regulations and, in any case, did not contain the details required by Article 24 of the National Police’s Disciplinary Regulations. Moreover, the State itself maintained in the public hearing convened by this Court that the investigation against Mr. López began on May 21, 2000, that is, after the arrest and not before he was deprived of his freedom. Therefore, it is clear that the detention did not comply with the applicable domestic regulations in force at the time of the events and, consequently, violated Article 7(2) of the American Convention. 82. Secondly, with regard to the alleged violation of Mr. López’s right to be informed of the reasons for his arrest and the charges brought against him, the Court observes that the body of evidence does not show that, at the time of the detention as part of the police disciplinary proceedings, Mr. López was informed of the “essential legal grounds and facts” on which the arrest was based. 151 On the contrary, Mr. López was detained and immediately restrained in order to be questioned about “what he had done the night before,” 152 with no further explanation. Mr. López himself declared before this Court in the public hearing that “at no point” was he given any arrest order, nor was he informed of the reason for the detention, but rather “they only asked [him] questions about an alleged coup d’état that had taken place the day before.” 153 Added to the above is the 150 Cf. Memorandum No. 62/00 from Inspector (Comisario) J.B.P. to Inspector (Comisario) J.D.O. of May 19, 2000 (evidence file, folio 1614). 151 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. 71. 152 Cf. Statement of the accused [Jorge Luis López Sosa] pursuant to Article 84 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of December 12, 2000 (evidence file, folio 6); Public Prosecution Service’s indictment and summons to trial of June 11, 2001, Case 01-01-02-00001-2000-2626 (evidence file, folio 13), and Mr. López Sosa’s testimony at the public hearing held during the 155th regular session. 153 Cf. Mr. López Sosa’s testimony at the public hearing held during the 155th regular session. Furthermore, this is consistent with what was stated by another of the detained police officers, Víctor Cáceres 25