B.1. Right to personal liberty 64. The Court has indicated that personal liberty and safety are guarantees against illegal or arbitrary detention or imprisonment. In this way, although the State has the right and obligation to ensure safety and maintain public order, its powers are not unlimited because, at all times, it has a duty to use procedures that are in keeping with the law and respect the fundamental rights of every individual subject to its jurisdiction. 87 The objective of ensuring safety and maintaining public order requires the State to legislate and to take measures of different types to prevent and regulate the conduct of its citizens, one of which is to ensure the presence of law enforcement personnel in public spaces. However, the Court observes that improper actions by such state agents in their interaction with those they should protect represents one of the main threats to the right to personal liberty, which, when it is violated, results in a risk that other rights will be violated, such as to personal integrity and, in some case, to life.88 65. The Court recalls that the essential content 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.89 This article contains two types of very different regulations, one general and the other specific. The general one is included in the first paragraph: “Every person has the right to personal liberty and security.” While the specific one 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 of the charges against the person detained (Article 7(4)), to judicial control of the deprivation of liberty and to the reasonableness of the length of pre-trial detention (Article 7(5)), to contest the legality of the detention (Article 7(6)) and not to be detained for debt (Article 7(7)). Any violation of paragraphs 2 to 7 of Article 7 of the Convention will necessarily result in the violation of Article 7(1).90 66. The Court has indicated that restriction of the right to personal liberty is only permissible “for the reasons and under the conditions established beforehand by the Constitution or by a law established pursuant thereto” (material aspect) and also strictly subject to the procedures objectively defined in the law (formal aspect). 91 Thus, although the Convention refers to the domestic law of the State in question, this referral does not signify that, pursuant to the Convention, the Court does not need to rule;92 rather, it must do so, precisely in accordance with this instrument and not in accordance with the said domestic law. In that case, the Court is not conducting a control of constitutionality or of legality, but only of conventionality. 93 67. Accordingly, regarding the requirement of the legality of the detention, the Court has indicated that, when referring to the Constitution and a law established “pursuant thereto,” 87 Cf. Servellón García et al. v. Honduras. Judgment of September 21, 2006. Series C No. 152, para. 86. 88 Cf. Servellón García et al. v. Honduras, supra, para. 87. 89 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 Azul Rojas Marín et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 12, 2020. Series C No. 402, para. 100. 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 Azul Rojas Marín et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 100. 90 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 Azul Rojas Marín et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 110. 91 92 Article 62(3) of the Convention. 93 Cf. Case of Azul Rojas Marín et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 110. 22