VII.2 RIGHT TO PERSONAL LIBERTY A. Arguments 50. The Inter-American Commission argued Mr. Fleury’s arrest was not conducted according to the provisions of domestic law, since the HNP agents arrested him without showing him an arrest warrant specifying the charges against him and without capturing him in flagrante delicto. In addition, he was arrested at 7 p.m., outside the hours prescribed by the Haitian Constitution. The Commission argued that Mr. Fleury’s arrest and detention were illegal and arbitrary and thus the State had violated Articles 7(2), 7(3) and 7(4) of the American Convention. 51. The Commission also noted that Haitian law stipulates that it is not permitted to detain anyone for more than 48 hours, unless they have been taken before a judge who must determine the legality of the arrest and this judge has confirmed the arrest by means of a duly-founded decision. Despite this, the Commission argued that “in this case, Mr. Fleury was detained for 17 hours in police custody, and no attempt was made by the corresponding police or judicial authorities to take him before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power.” The Commission stated that, given the circumstances of excessive use of force, and the illegal and arbitrary arrest and detention of Mr. Fleury, “the State did not respect Mr. Fleury’s right to be brought promptly before a judge, pursuant to Article 7(5) of the Convention.” 52. In their arguments, the representatives endorsed the arguments set out by the Commission, adding that these “serious offenses were violations of both Haitian national law, and Article 7 of the American Convention.” B. Considerations of the Court 53. The Court has reiterated that Article 7 of the American Convention contains two different types of regulations: one general and the other specific. The general one is contained in the first paragraph: “[e]very person has the right to personal liberty and security”; while the specific one is composed of a series of guarantees that protect the right not to be deprived of liberty illegally (Art. 7(2)), or in an arbitrary manner (Art. 7(3)), to be informed of the reasons for his detention and the charges against him (Art. 7(4)), to judicial control of the deprivation of liberty (Art. 7(5)), and to contest the legality of the arrest (Art. 7(6).35 Any violation of paragraphs 2 to 7 of Article 7 of the Convention necessarily entails the violation of Article 7(1) thereof.36 B.1 The alleged illegal and arbitrary detention of Mr. Fleury (Article 7(2) and 7(3)) July 31, 1835 (file of attachments to the application, tome I, attachment 7, folio 612). Although the State has alleged that the agents were transferred to another area of the HNP, no evidence was provided to support this information during hearing No. 10, and the petitioners have contested it, specifically Mr. Fleury, who stated that he had seen at least one of his attackers in the Bon Repos Police Station and another working in the HNP General Inspectorate. 35 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 Torres Millacura et al. v. Argentina, supra note 17, para. 73. 36 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, supra note 35, para. 54, and Case of Torres Millacura et al. v. Argentina, supra note 17, para. 73. 15