27 arrest her on a main road in broad daylight, and to keep her in clandestine detention and incommunicado in police installations. The State officials detained the alleged victim, without having been mandated by any judicial authority, and there was no arrest warrant against her, she was not informed of the charges against her, and she was not allowed to communicate with a lawyer, and never brought before a competent judge. All the above was carried out in violation of Guatemalan laws; b) Regarding the legality of the detention, the Guatemalan Constitution establishes that no one may be detained or imprisoned, unless this is due to an offense or misdemeanor, and as a result of an order issued in accordance with the law by a competent judicial authority. As regards the formal aspect, the Guatemalan Code of Criminal Procedure in force at the time of the facts stipulated that any person detained must be taken immediately to the corresponding detention center, and the judge must be informed of this; and c) The State has accepted expressly the characteristics of the detention indicated by the victim. This was acknowledged by the President of Guatemala in his declaration of August 9, 2000. Arguments of the representatives of the alleged victim 60. With regard to the violation of Article 7 of the Convention in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, the representatives of the alleged victim argued, in addition to the aspects indicated by the Commission, that: a) On August 9, 2000, the President of the Republic of Guatemala, acknowledged State responsibility for the facts on which the application is based and the allegations in this pleading before the Inter-American Court, which “is also equivalent to accepting that the unlawful deprivation of the freedom of Maritza Urrutia is the responsibility of the State”; and b) The place where Maritza Urrutia was detained corresponded to a military installation, as has been confirmed by the Commission for Historical Clarification. Also, the liberation of the alleged victim directly to the Attorney General and the fact that he took her immediately to a court to sign an act claiming amnesty underscore the complicity of other State bodies, because none of the authorities questioned her about her abduction, although they are obliged ex officio to seek information on offenses. Arguments of the State 61. The State did not present any specific argument on the alleged violation of Article 7 of the Convention. Considerations of the Court 62. Paragraphs 1 to 6 of Article 7 of the American Convention stipulate that: 1. Every person has the right to personal liberty and security.