68 [g]iven the seriousness of the charges and the legal consequences they would entail, it [w]as to be assumed that the defendant, if released, [would] try to escape justice or thwart the evidentiary procedures, as this is a natural defensive act. 128. Article 135 of the Code of Criminal Procedure set forth that “the penalty provided for in the Law for the crime charged would not constitute a sufficient criterion to establish the intent to elude justice.” However, the First Specialized Court assumed that the defendant would try to elude the action of justice due to the “seriousness of the facts charged and the legal consequences that their evidence would entail.” To that respect, this Court notices that in this case the First Criminal Court Specialized in the Crime of Terrorism did not submit enough arguments to maintain the detention of Wilson García-Asto. 129. Consequently, the State breached the obligation stated in Article 7(3) of the Convention to the detriment of Wilson García-Asto in the second proceedings instituted against him. * c) Regarding the detention of Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas on July 27, 1991 130. In this section, the Court refers to the considerations presented in paragraphs 103 to 106, 109, 111 to 114, 119 to 123, and 126 of this Judgment. 131. As to the lawfulness and arbitrariness of the detention of Urcesino RamírezRojas, the State, in its answer to the application, stated that said detention was carried out according to the Peruvian Constitution of 1979, in force at the time of his detention, which in Article 2, subparagraph (20)(g), stated that: No one shall be detained except with a written order issued by the Judge or by police authorities in case of flagrante delicto. In all cases, the detainee must be brought before a competent court within twenty-four hours or in the term allowed by distance. These terms shall not apply to the cases of terrorism, espionage or illegal drug trafficking. In these cases, police authorities may effect the preventive detention of the persons allegedly involved for a term which shall not exceed fifteen running days. Notice shall be served upon the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Judge, who may assume jurisdiction before the expiration of the abovementioned term. 132. However, as it has already been pointed out, after the submission of the answer to the application, the State acknowledged the facts occurred prior to September 2000 (supra paras. 52 to 60). Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas was detained at his domicile on July 27, 1991 by the DINCOTE personnel while he was sick and under no circumstances which could be deemed as flagrante delicto (supra para. 97(70)). Furthermore, the detention was not effected following a written arrest warrant, but on the mere suspicion of the DINCOTE agents, who were persecuting another person who was near Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas’ house (supra paras. 97(70) and 97(71)). The alleged victim