- 89 277. Mr. Chévez de la Rocha was arrested based on his supposed participation in a public protest in San Pedro Sula. The representatives argued the violation of Article 7444 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, owing to the failure to investigate his supposed arbitrary deprivation of liberty. In this chapter, the Court will set out the arguments of the representatives and of the Commission and will then examine the alleged violations of this article. A. Arguments of the Commission and the parties 278. The representatives asserted that, on August 12, 2009, Mr. Chévez was “arbitrarily arrested” and, even though Judge Chévez was able to obtain his own release, the Honduran State did not carry out an investigation into these events that would have identified and punished those responsible for having arbitrarily deprived him of his liberty. They indicated that “the obligation to ensure rights [contemplated in Article 1(1) of the Convention] requires […] the State to investigate the violations of this right and to punish those responsible,” and it has not done so to date. In addition, they stressed that this event was not isolated, but occurred in the context of a climate of violence against defenders who denounced human rights violations. 279. The Commission considered that “given the circumstances of this case and considering that the application for habeas corpus had been admitted, [it did] not have sufficient evidence to rule on a violation of the obligation to ensure the right to personal liberty.” 280. The State did not refer to the alleged violation of Article 7, although it did underscore that “it was proved that Luis Alonso Chévez of the Rocha had been released owing to a reasoned decision by order of the Executing Magistrate, Katy Antonia Sánchez, who told him that he was not detained and that there was no evidence against him.” B. Considerations of the Court 281. The Court recalls that Article 7 of the American Convention contains two types of very different rules, one general and the other specific. The general rule can be found in the first paragraph: [e]very person has the right to personal liberty and security. While the specific rule is composed of a series of guarantees that protect the right not to be deprived of liberty unlawfully (Article 7(2)) or arbitrarily (Article 7(3)); to be informed of the reasons for the detention and the charges against him (Article 7(4)); to judicial control of the deprivation of liberty (Article 7(5)), and to contest the lawfulness of the detention (Article 7(6)).445 Any violation of paragraphs 2 to 7 of Article 7 of the Convention necessarily results in the violation of its Article 7(1).446 444 Article 7 of the Convention establishes that: “1. Every person has the right to personal liberty and security. 2. No one shall be deprived of his physical liberty except for the reasons and under the conditions established beforehand by the constitution of the State Party concerned or by a law established pursuant thereto. 3. No one shall be subject to arbitrary arrest or imprisonment. 4. Anyone who is detained shall be informed of the reasons for his detention and shall be promptly notified of the charge or charges against him. 5. Any person detained shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to be released without prejudice to the continuation of the proceedings. His release may be subject to guarantees to assure his appearance for trial. 6. Anyone who is deprived of his liberty shall be entitled to recourse to a competent court, in order that the court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his arrest or detention and order his release if the arrest or detention is unlawful. In States Parties whose laws provide that anyone who believes himself to be threatened with deprivation of his liberty is entitled to recourse to a competent court in order that it may decide on the lawfulness of such threat, this remedy may not be restricted or abolished. The interested party or another person in his behalf is entitled to seek these remedies. 7. No one shall be detained for debt. This principle shall not limit the orders of a competent judicial authority issued for nonfulfillment of duties of support.” 445 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 51, and Case of Wong Ho Wing v. Peru, supra, para. 236. 446 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 54, and Case of Wong Ho Wing v. Peru, supra, para. 236.