and 7(3) of the American Convention and ordered that the arrest be revoked and the restriction on his travelling abroad be lifted and the procedure under military jurisdiction should be suspended. In defiance of the order, the military authorities set up a special military tribunal, arrested, tried and convicted Gustavo Cesti Hurtado. The state argued that Gustavo Cesti Hurtado ought to have appealed against his arrest and the jurisdiction of the tribunal to try him in that any person prosecuted under military jurisdiction, should have opted for presenting a jurisdictional dispute or requested provisional liberty. They argued further that at the time the order was made Gustavo was not in detention and as such there was no corps to bring before the Public law chamber The Court in rejecting the defense arguments held that the habeas corpus petition filed by Gustavo fulfils all the when there is a hypothetical conflict between laws, the one which is most favorable to the fundamental right in question should be applied and, when in doubt, it should also be resolved in favor of the nght to liberty because liberty is the Prius of law. That it is evident that the military authorities defied the order of the public law Chamber in its entirety and proceeded to detain, prosecute and convict Gustavo Cesti Hurtado That as this Court has already determined, the petition for habeas corpus filed by Gustavo Cesti Hurtado fulfills all the requirements set forth in the Convention, which establishes an appropriate method to ensure the liberty of the affected person. Once Gustavo Cesti Hurtado sought and obtained the pertinent remedy, the existence of other remedies became irrelevant — even if it could be shown that they were equally effective. As a result of the refusal of the Military authorities to obey and execute the legitimate order of the Public Law Chamber 43