54. For the effects of Article 7(2) of the Convention, a detention, whether for a brief period, or a “delay,” even if merely for identification purposes, is a form of deprivation of physical liberty of the individual and, consequently, as a limitation of this liberty, it must adhere strictly to the relevant provisions of the American Convention and domestic law, provided that the latter is compatible with the Convention.37 Thus, Article 7(2) of the Convention refers automatically to the domestic legal and constitutional provisions, so that any requirement established in them that is not complied with will cause this deprivation of liberty to be illegal and contrary to the American Convention.38 Consequently, The Court must verify whether Mr. Fleury’s detention was carried out in keeping with Haitian law. 55. The 1989 Haitian Constitution established the right to personal liberty in the following provisions: Article 24.1: No one may be prosecuted, arrested or detained except in the cases determined by law and as prescribed by law. Article 24.2: Except when the perpetrator of a crime is caught in flagrante delicto, no one may be arrested or detained other than by a written order issued by a competent official. Article 24.3: For such an order to be executed, the following requirements must be met: a. b. c. d. It must formally state the reason in Creole and in French for the arrest or detention, and the legal provision that establishes the punishment for the alleged act. Legal notification must be given and a copy of the order must be provided to the accused at the time of its execution. The accused must be notified of his right to be assisted by counsel at all stages of the investigation of the case up to the final judgment. Except when the perpetrator of a crime is caught in flagrante delicto, no arrest under an official warrant and no search may take place between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. […] Article 26: No one may be detained for more than 48 hours unless he has been brought before a judge who has been asked to rule on the legality of the arrest and the said judge has confirmed the arrest by a duly-founded decision.39 56. In this case, the Court observes that Mr. Fleury was arrested without the issue or presentation of an arrest warrant that contained the justification for the arrest and the legal provision indicating the punishment associated with a crime previously defined in Haitian criminal law (supra para. 35). Furthermore, Mr. Fleury was not deprived of his liberty while in flagrante delicto. Moreover, as indicated by the parties and not contested by the State, Mr. Fleury’s arrest was carried out at 7 p.m. (supra para. 33); in other words, outside the hours established in the Constitution for such purposes. Consequently, Mr. Fleury’s arrest was evidently contrary to the provisions of domestic law and, therefore, illegal, in violation of Article 7(2) of the American Convention. 57. In relation to the arbitrariness of the detention, Article 7(3) of the Convention establishes that “no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or imprisonment.” Regarding this provision, on other opportunities the Court has considered that no one may be subjected to arrest or imprisonment for reasons and using methods that – although 37 Cf. Case of Torres Millacura et al. v. Argentina, supra note 17, para. 76. 38 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, supra note 35, para. 57, and Case of Torres Millacura et al. v. Argentina, supra note 17, para. 74. 39 English version taken from the translation from French into Spanish made by the Court’s Secretariat. 16