41 When the crime does not merit corporal punishment, the Examining Magistrate Court will issue an order declaring the accused subject to trial and ordering the accused to appear to make a statement in the investigation. (…) 211. Article 183 of the same Code established: No one may be arrested without the requirements established in the preceding article, unless the crime merits corporal punishment and the person is caught in flagrante. In this case, any authority should and any individual may arrest the person thus caught. 212. On the concept of in flagrante, Article 184 of the Code stated: For purposes of the preceding article, a crime shall be considered in flagrante if being committed or if it has just been committed. A crime shall also be considered in flagrante when the guilty person is sought by the police authority, the aggrieved party, or public outcry, or when he is caught, shortly after committing the crime, in the same place or close to the place where the crime was committed, with weapons, tools or other items that in some way lead to a well-founded presumption that he is the criminal. 213. As indicated in the section on proven facts, Eduardo José Landaeta was arrested on December 29, 1996, when he was 17 years old, without a court order and in the absence of any in flagrante situation as this concept is defined in domestic legislation. 214. The only document in the file related to the arrest is the “arrest order” issued by the CSOP, which indicates that the cause for the procedure was the fact that Eduardo José Landaeta “is being sought by the CTPJ Mariño Section,” and that the authority who ordered the arrest was police officer Carlos Requena. 215. The Commission notes that although the constitutional provision cited did not specify which “authorized official” should order the arrest, the Code did clearly provide that “a court” should be involved, i.e., a judicial authority. In the instant case, the arrest was ordered by a CSOP police officer as the result of a request from the CTPJ, a body that, while it carried out investigative functions, was essentially a police agency. 216. In this respect, the Commission feels that the arrest of Eduardo José Landaeta was illegal. The Commission also feels that this situation has an aggravating factor in that Eduardo José was a minor at the time of his arrest, which entailed a special duty to protect on the part of the State, which should have sought to ensure that the deprivation of his liberty was effected in accordance with domestic standards governing such arrest and, in any case, with the international obligations assumed by Venezuela. The Commission concludes that the State violated Article 7.1 and 7.2 of the Convention, in connection with Article 19 and 1.1 of the same instrument, to the detriment of Eduardo José Landaeta. 2. The right not to be deprived of liberty arbitrarily 217. Although it has already been determined that Eduardo José Landaeta was illegally deprived of liberty and bearing in mind the victim’s special condition as a minor, the Commission considers it necessary to analyze whether his arrest was also arbitrary in the sense of being based on a legitimate purpose, appropriate, necessary, and proportional. 218. stated that With respect to these factors directly related to the right to personal liberty, the Court has …it is not sufficient that any reason for the deprivation or restriction of the right to liberty is embodied in the law, but this law and its application must be compatible with the Convention. In