Commission’s Merits Report, and in the briefs with motions, arguments and evidence of the representatives of the presumed victims,” and did not present arguments to contest the alleged violation of Article 7 of the Convention. In its final written arguments, the State referred to Chile’s criminal procedural law which regulates pre-trial detention, without referring to the specific cases of the presumed victims. In addition, the State did not raise any objection related to the expert evidence proposed by the common interveners the purpose of which included the issue of pre-trial detention.42 43. A particularity of this case is that, in the Merits Report, the Inter-American Commission decided the four petitions included in the case submitted to the Court jointly and, therefore, in the said report, it included a brief description of the criminal proceedings against the eight presumed victims. This description was completed by the common interveners in more detail. In the Court’s opinion, the facts described by the common interveners in their motions and arguments briefs regarding the pre-trial detention measures to which the presumed victims were subject constitute facts that complement and provide details in relation to the factual determinations included in the Merits Report, insofar as the pre-trial detentions were ordered within the framework of the criminal proceedings against the presumed victims described by the Inter-American Commission. Consequently, these facts will be considered part of the factual framework, and the Court will examine them in relation to the eight presumed victims taking into account the documentary evidence in the three domestic criminal case files. 2. The initial arrests and their judicial control 44. The statements made by presumed victims Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia and Víctor Manuel Ancalaf Llaupe during the public hearing in this case include affirmations concerning the facts relating to the legality of the initial arrests of some of the presumed victims and the time that elapsed between these arrests and the respective judicial control. 45. The Merits Report made no mention of these factual aspects, and neither the Commission nor the common interveners presented specific arguments in relation to the legality of the initial arrest. Moreover, it should be stressed that, even though the initial arrests were ordered in the context of the investigations that formed part of the criminal proceedings in this case, in order to analyze whether violations of the rights recognized in Articles 7(2) and 7(4) of the Convention were possibly constituted, it would be necessary to examine compliance with the formal requirements and the Court was not provided with sufficient probative elements in this regard to make this analysis. Consequently, these facts are not part of the factual framework of this case and the Court will not rule on them. 3. Allegations of violence during the initial arrests and inhumane detention conditions 46. Some of the arguments of the common interveners concerning the alleged violation of Article 5 of the Convention refer to supposed facts relating to the “arrest [of the presumed victims] during vast police operations” and to the supposed “violent raids on the communities,” as well as to the supposed “violent way” in which the “first arrest [of Víctor Manuel Ancalaf Llaupe] was made by the Chilean Police Force (Carabineros de Chile).” In addition, in its arguments on the alleged violation of this article, CEJIL included general facts concerning the “inhumane detention conditions to which the persons […] kept” in the El Manzano Prison, where 42 Cf. Affidavit prepared on May 17, 2013, by expert witness Claudio Alejandro Fierro Morales on: “the [alleged] impairment of due process of law and the judicial guarantees of the persons prosecuted under the regime regulated in the Counter-terrorism Act; the characteristics of the former criminal procedure system, and the compatibility of the said legal frameworks with the relevant international standards,” and Affidavit prepared on May 15, 2013, by expert witness Mauricio Alfredo Duce Julio on “the scope of the constitutional and legal rules concerning pre-trial detention in Chile and their use in the practice by the courts of justice. In particular, [he referred to] the legal ground of ‘danger to the security of society’” (file of statements of the presumed victims, witnesses and expert witnesses, folios 3 and 37 to 80). 16