7 1. Upon examining the possible violations of the right to personal liberty of Mr. Ramírez-Rojas, the Court found that Peru violated Article 7(1), (2), (3), (5), and (6) of the Convention as he was arrested without a warrant, even though it was not a case of flagrante delicto. He was taken before a judge only thirteen days after his arrest, and he was denied the right to file a writ of habeas corpus (paragraph 134 of the judgment), all of which took place during the first proceedings brought against him, which extended from July 27, 1991, when he was arrested, to March 27, 2003, when the Constitutional Court rendered the decision whereby it sustained in part the action filed therewith by the detainee and ordered that the proceedings against which such action had been filed be quashed. 2. Mr. Ramírez-Rojas continued to be deprived of his liberty, on the basis of the 1991 arrest warrant, despite the decision rendered by the Constitutional Court, as the Court held that the annulment did not affect some stages of the criminal proceedings and that said warrant “was valid and retained its effect.” The Constitutional Court remanded the case to the relevant Criminal Court so that the relevant procedures be taken; notwithstanding, the Criminal Court convened to hear the case only on June 24, 2003, without issuing a new arrest warrant which justified the deprivation of liberty, in accordance with Article 7 of the American Convention. The Inter-American Court found that Peru violated Article 7(3) of the Convention insofar as during the period of time in which the arrest warrrant was in force, the courts failed to submit sufficient grounds to keep it in force (paragraph 143). In other words, in its judgment, the Court found that the deprivation of Mr. Ramirez’s liberty, which has persisted to the date of the Inter-American Court’s judgment and of this opinion, that is, over fourteen years, was arbitrary and continues to be so to the present day. The Court should have ordered that the violation be ceased, which would have resulted in the immediate release of Mr. Ramírez. If after his release, the State considers that the required conditions to order his arrest in accordance with Article 7(2) and 7(3) are met, the relevant court should issue a warrant stating the grounds upon which the arrest is based. Even if the State shows that the arrest of Mr. Ramírez is justified under said provisions, it should also show that the time during which he has been confined conforms to the reasonability standard specified in Article 7(5) of the Convention. Otherwise, the State may not arrest Mr. Ramírez again, under the provisions of the Convention, unless he is convicted and arrested to serve his sentence. II. As a result of having been held in custody for a long time, under conditions that violated Article 5 of the Convention, and subject to proceedings that violated Article 8 thereof. 3. The Court decided not to order the State to take the necessary measures to ensure the immediate release of Mr. Ramírez. Rather, it ordered monetary reparation, with which I have concurred. However, even though the Court awarded monetary compensation, it should have considered the prison conditions, the duration of his imprisonment under such conditions, and the distress of being subject to proceedings in which he was denied the right to defend himself, to order, in addition, another form of relief.