47 The Court has established that this obligation also exists in police detention centers. 195 The Court notes that this obligation is included in a domestic norm that was not suspended (article 2, paragraph 20(i), supra para. 112). 123. The body of evidence reveals that the entry of Gladys Carol Espinoza Gonzáles is recorded on page 90 of the Detainee Register of the Peruvian National Police attached to the Ministry of the Interior, covering the period from August 27, 1992, to December 9, 1996. This document shows that her entry was only registered at 1.10 a.m. on April 19, 1993. 196 In other words, although the arrest was made on April 17, 1993, the entry was only registered two days later, and without the reasons for the arrest being clearly indicated, or who made the arrest, or the time of the arrest. Therefore, the Court finds that the failure to record the detention of Gladys Carol Espinoza Gonzáles appropriately constitutes a violation of the right recognized in Article 7(2) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Gladys Carol Espinoza Gonzáles. B.2. Article 7(4) of the American Convention (right to be informed of the reasons for the detention), in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument 124. The Commission and the representatives argued that Gladys Espinoza was not informed promptly of the reasons for her arrest and detention or the charge against her (supra paras. 103.b and 104.b). Article 7(4) of the American Convention refers to two guarantees for the person who is being arrested: (i) oral or written information on the reasons for the detention, and (ii) notification, which must be in writing, of the charges. 197 The information on the “reasons” for the detention must be provided “promptly,” and this constitutes a mechanism to avoid unlawful and arbitrary detentions from the very moment of the deprivation of liberty and, also, ensures the individual’s right of defense. 198 The Court has indicated that the agent who makes the arrest must advise the person detained, in a simple language free of technicalities, of the essential facts and legal grounds on which the arrest is based, and that Article 7(4) of the Convention is not satisfied by merely a mention of the legal grounds. 199 If the person is not informed appropriately of the reasons for the detention, including the facts and their legal grounds, they do not know the charges against which they must defend themselves and, at the same time, judicial control becomes illusory. 200 The Court notes that this obligation is included in a domestic norm that was not suspended (article 2, paragraph 20(h), supra para. 112). 125. Gladys Espinoza was arrested on April 17, 1993, and there is no evidence to prove that she was informed, orally or in writing, of the reasons for the detention in keeping with the above-mentioned standards (supra para. 124). The only evidence that the Court has is the preliminary statement of June 5, 1993, given at the DINCOTE headquarters and before the Special Military Judge, in which Gladys Espinoza explained that: 195 Cf. Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 132, and Case of J. v. Peru, supra, para. 152. 196 Cf. Note No. 4302 -2013-DIRCOTE/SG.2 of the Peruvian National Police to the Third Criminal Prosecutor of November 17, 2013 (evidence file, folios 11941 to 11943). 197 Cf. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220, para. 106, and Case of Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 369. 198 Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 82, and Case of the Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 165. 199 149. Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, supra, para. 71, and Case of J. v. Peru, supra, para. 200 Cf. Case of Yvon Neptune v. Haiti. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 180, para. 109, and Case of J. v. Peru, supra, para. 149.