33 Túnchez, Julio Roberto Caal Sandoval and Jovito Josué Juárez Cifuentes were illegally and arbitrarily deprived of their liberty by National Police Force agents. 123. When it answered the application, the State did not offer any defense with regard to the violation of Article 7 of the Convention (supra, paras. 67 and 68). 124. In its final arguments, the Commission stated that, when these four youths were abducted, the State violated not only the provisions of the Convention but also those of domestic law, specifically Article 6 of the Guatemalan Constitution. 125. In particular, the Commission stated that the former officers Néstor Fonseca López and Samuel Rocael Valdez Zúñiga, who they allege are the perpetrators of the abduction and retention, did not make a report on the detentions, did not present the youths before the competent judicial authority and, therefore, did not allow them to file a petition for habeas corpus. It also stressed that the right to personal liberty is an essential condition for the exercise of the other fundamental rights and that, as the alleged victims were retained clandestinely, they had no defense against the violation of the rights to receive humane treatment and to life that they also suffered. 126. In its final arguments, the State did not make any comment in this respect (supra, paras. 67 and 68). 127. Article 7 of the Convention provides 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. […] 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. […] 128. In the instant case, there is abundant concurring evidence that the abduction of the four youths was perpetrated by State agents and, more specifically, by members of the National Police Force. Indeed: — according to witnesses, those who deprived them of their liberty did so in daylight, in the street, without hiding their faces and they moved about freely within sight of numerous persons;