45 fundamental rights of all those subject to its jurisdiction. 184 Consequently, Article 27(1) 185 of the Convention permits the suspension of the obligations that it establishes, “to the extent and for the period of time strictly required by the exigencies of the situation” in question. The measures adopted should not violate other international obligations of the State Party, and should “not involve any discrimination on grounds of race, color, sex, language, religion or social origin.” 186 This means that the prerogative must also be exercised and interpreted in keeping with the provisions of Article 29(a) of the Convention, 187 exceptionally and in restrictive terms. In addition, Article 27(3) establishes the duty of States to “immediately inform the other States Parties, through the Secretary General of the Organization of American States, of the provisions the application of which it has suspended, the reasons that gave rise to the suspension, and the date set for the termination of such suspension.” 118. First, the Court notes that the body of evidence in this case reveals that in a note of July 12, 1993, the Permanent Representative of Peru before the Organization of American States (OAS) had forwarded only to the Executive Secretariat of the Inter-American Commission, “copy of the Supreme Decrees promulgated by the Government of Peru between January 19 and June 19 [1993].” 188 Consequently, the Court has no evidence to analyze whether the State complied with the said duty to advise that it had suspended guarantees, through the OAS Secretary General. 119. In addition, as already indicated, the detention of Gladys Espinoza took place in the context of a conflict between armed groups and agents of the Police and Military Forces, and the implementation in Peru of a decree, applicable to the geographical area, which extended the state of emergency that had been decreed and suspended certain constitutional guarantees, including the right to be arrested only by court order or in flagrante delicto (article 2, paragraph 20.g, supra paras. 112 and 114). The Court notes that the Convention permits the suspension of guarantees only in case of war, public danger, or other emergency that threatens the independence or security of a State Party, 189 and that the Convention does not prohibit suspending this right temporally while complying with certain safeguards. 190 184 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 174, and Case of J. v. Peru, supra, para. 124. 185 Article 27 of the Convention on suspension of guarantees establishes that: “1. In time of war, public danger, or other emergency that threatens the independence or security of a State Party, it may take measures derogating from its obligations under the present Convention to the extent and for the period of time strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with its other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination on the ground of race, color, sex, language, religion, or social origin. 2. The foregoing provision does not authorize any suspension of the following articles: Article 3 (Right to Juridical Personality), Article 4 (Right to Life), Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), Article 6 (Freedom from Slavery), Article 9 (Freedom from Ex Post Facto Laws), Article 12 (Freedom of Conscience and Religion), Article 17 (Rights of the Family), Article 18 (Right to a Name), Article 19 (Rights of the Child), Article 20 (Right to Nationality), and Article 23 (Right to Participate in Government), or of the judicial guarantees essential for the protection of such rights. 3. Any State Party availing itself of the right of suspension shall immediately inform the other States Parties, through the Secretary General of the Organization of American States, of the provisions the application of which it has suspended, the reasons that gave rise to the suspension, and the date set for the termination of such suspension.” 186 Cf. Habeas Corpus in Emergency Situations (Arts. 27(2), 25(1) and 7(6) American Convention on Human Rights), supra, para. 19, and Case of J. v. Peru, supra, para. 139. 187 The relevant part of Article 29 of the Convention establishes that: “[n]o provision of this Convention shall be interpreted as: (a) permitting any State Party, group, or person to suppress the enjoyment or exercise of the rights and freedoms recognized in this Convention or to restrict them to a greater extent than is provided for herein.” 188 Nota 7-5-M/211, issued on July 12, 1993, by which the Permanent Representative of Peru before the OAS notified the Executive Secretariat of the Inter-American Commission of the issue of Supreme Decree No. 019-93DE/CCFFAA of March 22, 1993 (evidence file, folio 5997). 189 Cf. Habeas Corpus in Emergency Situations (Arts. 27(2), 25(1) and 7(6) American Convention on Human Rights), supra, para. 19, and Case of J. v. Peru, supra, para. 138. 190 Cf. Case of J. v. Peru, supra, para. 140, and Case of Osorio Rivera and family members v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2013. Series C No. 274, para. 120.