48 [She] was detained on April 17 this year at around 4 p.m., when riding on a motorcycle with Rafael Salgado Castillo, at an intersection on Avenida Brazil, and [she did] not know why [she] was captured, but found out the following day during the police interrogation, when [she] was asked for an alias that, at this time, [she does] not remember; it appears that they were looking for a man who had been abducted and accused Rafael Salgado, [and she explained that] during the investigation they told [her] in this regard that a Japanese man had been abducted; they told [her] that she was implicated in this. 201 126. In this regard, the Court understands that it was during an interrogation and in the context of the police investigation that Gladys Espinoza became aware of the reasons for her detention, although it is not certain of the specific moment or the circumstances in which this occurred. Therefore, the State failed to comply with the treaty-based obligation to provide oral or written information on the reasons for the arrest. 127. Furthermore, the evidence reveals that the day after her arrest; that is, on April 18, 1993, Gladys Espinoza signed a form identified as “notification of arrest” which merely indicated that: “You are hereby informed that you are detained in this Police Station in order to clarify a crime of terrorism.” 202 In this regard, it is on record that, on May 7, 1993, and in the presence of the Investigating Agent in one of the DINCOTE offices, Gladys Espinoza stated: “yes, I have been informed in writing of the reasons for my detention.” 203 In this regard, the Court has indicated that, when the violation of Article 7(4) of the Convention is alleged, it is necessary to analyze the facts under domestic law as well as under the provisions of the Convention. 204 Thus, although, in accordance with the domestic norm that was not suspended (article 2, paragraph 20(h), supra para. 112) and the standards of the Convention (supra para. 124), Gladys Espinoza should have been notified promptly and in writing of the reasons for her detention, including the charges, the facts and their legal grounds, in a simple language free of technicalities, this did not happen, because it was only on the day following her arrest and detention that she was notified merely that she was being detained in order to clarify a crime of terrorism. 128. In view of the fact that she was not informed of the reasons for the detention or notified of the charges against her, pursuant to the provisions of the Convention, the Court finds that the State violated Article 7(4) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Gladys Carol Espinoza Gonzáles. B.3. Article 7(5) and 7(3) of the American Convention (right to judicial control of the detention and right not to be deprived of liberty arbitrarily), in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument 129. The Commission and the representatives affirmed that Gladys Espinoza had remained incommunicado for several days and was brought before a judge of the military jurisdiction 80 days after her arrest (supra paras. 103.c and 104.c). The initial phrase of Article 7(5) of the Convention establishes that the detention of a person must be submitted to judicial review promptly. The Court has indicated that in order to meet the requirement of Article 7(5) “to be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power,” the person detained must appear in person before the competent authority, who must hear the detainee personally and assess all the explanations he or she provides, in order to decide 201 Preliminary statement of Gladys Espinoza before the military judge on June 5, 1993 (evidence file, folios 9401 and 9402). 202 Notification of detention dated April 18, 1993 (evidence file, folio 5803). 203 Statement by Gladys Espinoza of May 7, 1993 (evidence file, folios 5804 to 5807). 204 Cf. Case of Fleury et al. v. Haiti. Merits and reparations. Judgment of November 23, 2011. Series C No. 236, para. 60, and Case of Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 369.