46 120. Despite the foregoing, the Court has pointed out that the suspension of guarantees should not exceed what is strictly necessary and that any action by the public authorities that exceeds those limits, which must by precisely set out in the provisions that decree a state of emergency, is unlawful. 191 Thus, the limitations imposed on the actions taken by the State respond to the generic need that, in any state of emergency, appropriate measures subsist to control the measures ordered, so as to ensure that they are reasonably adapted to the needs of the situation and do not exceed the strict limits imposed by, or derived from, the Convention. 192 Indeed, the suspension of guarantees constitutes an exceptional situation, under which it is lawful for the Government to apply certain measures that restrict rights and freedoms, which, under normal conditions, are prohibited or subject to more rigorous requirements. This does not mean, however, that the suspension of guarantees entails the temporary suspension of the rule of law or that it authorizes the Government to act in a way that is contrary to the lawfulness that it must always observe. When guarantees have been suspended, some of the legal limits to the actions of the public authorities may differ from those in force under normal conditions, but should not be considered inexistent, nor should it be understood, consequently, that the Government is invested with absolute powers that exceed the conditions under which this exceptional legality is authorized. 193 121. The case file reveals that, at the time of Gladys Espinoza’s arrest, the state of emergency had been extended which suspended, among other matters, the right to be arrested only by court order or in flagrante delicto (supra para. 119). Also, the procedural norms applicable to the police investigation, the preliminary proceedings, and the trial of crimes of terrorism and treason decreed on May 5 and September 21, 1992, were in force (supra para. 115). On this point, the representatives and the Commission did not argue that, at the time of the facts of this case, the situation in Peru did not require the suspension of the said rights. Nevertheless, the Court observes that, although the right to be detained only by court order or in flagrante delicto was suspended, the said procedural norms allowed a person presumably implicated in the crime of terrorism to be kept in preventive detention for no more than 15 calendar days, which could be extended for a similar period, without the person being brought before a judicial authority (supra para. 112). Also, “the remedy of habeas corpus [was inadmissible] in the case of detainees implicated in or being prosecuted for the crime of terrorism covered by Decree Law No. 25,475.” The Court considers that the possible effects on Gladys Espinoza, owing to the application of the said norms, must be analyzed in light of the guarantees established in Article 7(3), 7(5) and 7(6) of the Convention, and will therefore analyze them in the following subsections. B.1.3. Absence of an appropriate record of the detention 122. The Commission and the representatives argued the absence of an appropriate record of the detention of Gladys Espinoza (supra paras. 103.b and 104.a). The Court has considered that any detention, regardless of the reason for it or its duration, must be duly recorded in the pertinent document, clearly indicating, at least, the reasons for the arrest, who made it, the time of the arrest, and the time of the release, as well as a record that the competent judge was advised, in order to protect against any unlawful or arbitrary interference with physical liberty. 194 191 Cf. Habeas Corpus in Emergency Situations (Arts. 27(2), 25(1) and 7(6) American Convention on Human Rights), supra, para. 38, and Case of J. v. Peru, supra, para. 139. 192 Cf. Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27(2), 25 and 8 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987. Series A No. 9, para. 21, and Case of J. v. Peru, supra, para. 139. 193 Cf. Habeas Corpus in Emergency Situations (Arts. 27(2), 25(1) and 7(6) American Convention on Human Rights), supra, para. 24, and Case of J. v. Peru, supra, para. 137. 194 Cf. Case of Torres Millacura et al. v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 26,2011. Series C No. 229, para. 76, and Case of Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 347.