‘communications between the alleged victim and the United State Consulate [because] such communications are private.” However, it insisted that there was evidence of the exercise of the right “of Scot [Cochran] to communicate with the consulate of his country at any time.” 98. The State also argued that, during the second review procedure, when examining the claim of the lack of consular assistance, the Third Chamber analyzed the scope of the right and indicated that, if the alleged victim had not received the said assistance, it was because he had not requested this. It indicated that the first time that this claim was made was in the appeal for review filed on April 28, 2009, decided by the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice in a ruling of November 30, 2010. It indicated that the Commission and the representatives were seeking the application of a standard developed after that ruling was issued. Despite this, the State’s actions were in keeping with the standards established by the Inter-American Court in judgments delivered in 2010. B. Considerations of the Court 99. On numerous occasions, this Court has ruled on the essential content of Article 7 of the American Convention describing this as the protection of the liberty of the individual against any arbitrary or unlawful interference by the State.113 The Court has emphasized two types of very different regulations contained in this article, one general and the other specific. The specific regulations, which encompass a series of guarantees, are set out in paragraphs 2 to 6 of the article and are: 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 the respective charges (Article 7(4)), to judicial control of the deprivation of liberty (Article 7(5)) and to contest the lawfulness of the detention (Article 7(6)).114 100. In its case law, the Court has determined that foreigners who are detained are in a particularly vulnerable situation because they are in a different social and legal environment from their own, often with a language they do not know; therefore, this situation may result in the person detained being unaware of the reasons why he has been deprived of liberty and the charges against him. To avoid this, the Court has insisted that the right to information on consular assistance responds to the need to ensure that there is real access to justice, guaranteeing the existence of equal conditions for the foreigner who is detained, so that he may benefit from due process of law and, consequently, all the judicial guarantees established in Article 8(2) of the American Convention.115 The Court has also stressed the need to ensure the effective defense of the individual’s interests which, in light of the conditions of real inequality, make it obligatory to take compensatory measures that help reduce or eliminate the 113 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 Aroca Palma et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 8, 2022. Series C No. 471, para. 78. 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. 51, and Case of Aroca Palma et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 79. 114 Cf. The Right to Information on Consular Assistance Within the Framework of the Guarantees of the Due Process of Law, Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, October 1, 1999. Series A No. 16, para. 119, and Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2010. Series C No. 218, para. 152. 115 28