64 detention of an individual is a complete denial of the guarantees that must be granted and an even greater violation of the Article in question94. 141. In the same way, this Court has indicated that, by protecting personal liberty, a safeguard is also provided for both the physical liberty of the individual and his personal safety [...], in a context where the absence of guarantees may result in the subversion of the rule of law and deprive those arrested of the minimum legal protection95. 142. In cases of forced disappearance of persons, the Court has stated that this represents a phenomenon of “arbitrary deprivation of liberty, an infringement of a detainee's right to be taken without delay before a judge and to invoke the appropriate procedures to review the legality of the arrest, all in violation of Article 7 of the Convention.”96 143. This Court has established as proven in the case being examined, that Efraín Bámaca Velásquez was detained by the Guatemalan army in clandestine detention centers for at least four months, thus violating Article 7 of the Convention (supra 121 I, j, k, l). Although this is a case of the detention of a guerrilla during an internal conflict (supra 121 b), the detainee should have been ensured the guarantees that exist under the rule of law, and been submitted to a legal proceeding. This Court has already stated that, although the State has the right and obligation to guarantee its security and maintain public order, it must execute its actions “within limits and according to procedures that preserve both public safety and the fundamental rights of the human person.”97 144. In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the State violated Article 7 de la American Convention to the detriment of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez. XII VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 (RIGHT TO HUMANE TREATMENT) 145. that: Regarding the violation of Article 5 of the Convention, the Commission alleged a) the forced disappearance of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez and his confinement in a clandestine detention center constitute violations of Article 5 of the Convention, because they represent cruel and inhuman forms of treatment that, according to the jurisprudence of this Court, injure the physical and moral integrity of the person and his dignity; 94 Cf. Eur. Court HR, Kurt v. Turkey, supra note 90, para. 124. 95 Cf. Villagrán Morales et al. Case (the “Street Children” Case), supra note 52, para. 135. 96 Cf. Godínez Cruz Case, supra note 53, paras. 163 and 196; Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales Case, supra note 53, para. 148; and Velásquez Rodríguez Case, supra note 53, paras. 155 and 186. 97 Cf. Durand and Ugarte Case, supra note 56, para. 69; Castillo Petruzzi et al. Case, supra note 50, paras. 89 and 204; Godínez Cruz Case, supra note 53, para. 162; and Velásquez Rodríguez Case, supra note 53, para. 154.