40 78. The Judge of the case issued an order of preventive detention against Mr. Alfredo López Álvarez “for the crime of possession and illegal trafficking of narcotics, in detriment of the public health of the State of Honduras,” based on the “fact that was proven on the day of Sunday, April [27, 1997],” that is, on the fact that Mr. Alfredo López Álvarez was detained by police agents in the act of committing the crime. The judicial authority did not take into account new evidentiary elements that could justify the detention, instead it only considered the same elements that supported the arrest in flagrante (supra para. 54(11) and 54(20)). 79. In the circumstances of the present case, the above violates the principles and the norms applicable to the preventive detention, pursuant to the American Convention and the corresponding domestic law (supra paras. 67, 68, 69, and 77). 80. On the other hand, the same criteria and norms that apply to the preventive detention must give content to the legislation that regulates it (supra paras. 67, 68, and 69). 81. In the present case, although Article 93 of the Constitution of Honduras states that “[e]ven with a commitment order, no person may be imprisoned or detained […], if they offer sufficient bail,” Article 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedures only permits the concession of said benefit in the event of crimes that “do not deserve a prison sentence that exceeds five years.” The sentence that may be applied for illicit drugtrafficking, of which the alleged victim was accused, was of 15 to 20 years in prison. Therefore, the imprisonment to which Mr. Alfredo López Álvarez was subject was also a consequence of that stated in the legislation on criminal procedures. Said legislation ignored the need, enshrined in the American Convention, that the preventive detention be justified in each specific case, through the weighing of the elements that concurred in the same, and that in no case shall the application of said precautionary measure be determined by the crime with which the individual is being charged. * * * 82. In what refers to the alleged violation of Article 7(4) of the Convention, this Tribunal reiterates that the representatives of the alleged victims may argument rights different to those stated by the Commission, always in relation to the facts considered in the application made by the latter.88 83. The right of the person detained or retained to be informed of the reasons for his arrest and notified, without delay, of the charges against him is enshrined in Article 7(4) of the American Convention, which does not distinguish between the arrest made through a court order and that practiced infragranti. Therefore, we can conclude that the person arrested in a crime detected in the act conserves that right. 84. Taking into account that said information permits an adequate right to defense, it is possible to state that the obligation to inform the person of the motives and reasons for his arrest and of his rights does not accept exceptions and must be observed independently of the way in which the arrest occurs. 88 Cf. Case of García-Asto and Ramírez-Rojas, supra note 7, para. 218; Case of Gómez-Palomino, supra note 7, para. 59, and Case of the girls Yean and Bosico, supra note 15, para. 181.