a case, or to judge the various circumstances included in that context. 56 Furthermore, it is not called upon to rule on the different facts alleged by the State and the representatives, or on public policies adopted at different times to counter such aspects outside the events of a certain case. On the contrary, the Court takes these facts into consideration as part of the arguments of the parties in their litigation. 65. The Court notes that the Commission, both in its report on the merits 57 and in its application, 58 presented the human rights violations that occurred in this case within a context of alleged abuses by the military forces in Guerrero, patterns related to the use of torture and their impact on judicial proceedings, as well as the use of military courts for the investigation of cases involving human rights violations. Therefore, this context is a subject of the present litigation and relates to the facts alleged. In analyzing the merits of the case and any possible reparations, the Court shall consider the scope of this alleged context and the respective arguments presented by the representatives. VII RIGHT TO PERSONAL LIBERTY IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATION TO RESPECT AND GUARANTEE RIGHTS 4. General description of the domestic proceedings and jurisdictional levels that assessed the facts 66. In order to determine whether there was a breach of Article 7, 59 in relation to Article 1(1) 60 of the American Convention, in the following chapters the Court shall set forth in detail the disputes between the parties and the steps taken in the proceedings related to the instant case. However, as a general introduction, the following aspects shall be explained: 1.1) undisputed facts related to the arrest of the alleged victims; 1.2) the criminal judicial proceeding that led to the conviction of the alleged victims; 1.3) the applications for amparo filed by Messrs. Cabrera 56 See Case of La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 32 and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra note 27, para. 51. 57 Cf. Merits Report N° 88/08, paras. 166, 167, 170, 191, 193 to 196, 199 and 200, supra note 3, pages 65, 66, 70, 72, 73, and 75. 58 Cf. Application brief, paras. 133, 134, 138, 152, 153, 159 to 161, 163, 166 and 167, supra note 52, pages 61, 62, 67,69, 70, 71 and 73. 59 Article 7 (Right to Personal Liberty) 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. 4. Anyone who is detained shall be informed of the reasons for his detention and shall be promptly notified of the charge or charges against him. 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. […] 60 According to Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect the Rights) of the Convention, “The States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth, or any other social condition.” 25