determine and issue, as soon as possible, the corresponding judgment within the preliminary investigation on the alleged acts of torture. 97 76. In response to the CNDH’s recommendations, the PGJM launched another Preliminary Inquiry on September 29, 2000 to investigate the allegations of torture, prolonged detention and other crimes. On November 3, 2001, the Military Prosecutor decided to refer the inquiry to the PGMJ “proposing that no criminal action be brought and that the inquiry be definitively closed, with the exceptions that the law provides,” on the grounds that the investigation did not find that acts of torture were committed against Mr. Cabrera and Mr. Montiel. 98 2. Alleged violation of the right to personal security 77. The representatives argued “that the right to personal security, which is closely related to personal liberty, has a specific content” inasmuch as it “creates a favorable and adequate environment for the peaceful coexistence of people.” According to the representatives, “[w]hile subsections 2 to 7 of the aforementioned Article 7 constitu[te] specific guarantees that establish guidelines regarding how an individual may be validly deprived of liberty, the right to security protec[ts] the conditions under which physical liberty is ensured, or is free of threats.” In this respect, the representatives stated that “the role played by the Army in public security tasks […] fostered an environment contrary to an effective protection of human rights.” The representatives therefore argued that “the manner in which the Mexican Army operated in Guerrero at the time of the events of this case, implied a State action or policy that created a risk to the physical liberty [of the alleged] victims, […] infringing both Articles 1(1) and 7(1) of the American Convention.” 78. The Commission and the State did not submit arguments regarding the violation of the right to personal security. Nevertheless, the State argued that the armed forces’ participation in the comprehensive security strategy is supported by the Mexican legal framework, which has determined that “this participation is subsidiary, temporary and only upon request of the civil authorities,” so as to “prevent, discourage, investigate, and prosecute high-impact crimes such as drug trafficking, organized crime and the use of heavy firearms.” 79. The Court recalls that, with regard to Article 7 of the American Convention, it has reiterated that it contains two types of well-differentiated provisions, one general and one specific. The general provision is contained in the first subparagraph: “[e]very person has the right to personal liberty and security.” Meanwhile, the specific provision consists of a number of guarantees that protect the right not to be deprived of liberty unlawfully (Art. 7(2)) or in an arbitrary manner (Art. 7(3)), to be informed of the reasons for the detention and the charges brought against him (Art. 7(4)), to judicial control of the deprivation of liberty (Art. 7(5)), and to contest the lawfulness of the arrest (Art. 7(6)). 99 Any 97 Cf. CNDH. Recommendation N° 8/2000 of July 14, 2000, supra note 89, page 8459. 98 Cf. Order issued on November 3, 2001 by the First Investigating Agent of the Office of the Public Prosecutor for Military Justice for the Area of Preliminary Inquiries of the Attorney General’s Office for Military Justice (File of attachments to the application, volume XIX, annex 11, pages 8181 to 8367). 99 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C N° 170, para. 51; Case of Yvon Neptune v. Haiti, supra note 49, para 89; Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Series C N° 207, para. 143. 30