19 comply with the obligation established in Article 7(5) of the Convention to be brought before a “judge or other official authorized by law to exercise judicial power.”51 The Court has reiterated that the judge must hear the detainee personally and assess all the explanations that the latter provides, so as to decide whether it is in order to release him or to maintain the deprivation of liberty.52 Otherwise, it would be tantamount to stripping the judicial review established in Article 7(5) of the Convention of its effectiveness. 66. Subsequently, on November 24, 1991, Juan Carlos Bayarri was transferred to the Palace of Justice of the Federal Capital to make a statement before Court of First Instance No. 25.53 This measure, in addition to failing to comply with the provisions of Argentine law, thus violating Article 7(2) of the Convention (supra paras. 56 and 64), was taken almost one week after the detention and, consequently, did not satisfy the requirement of bringing any person detained “promptly” before the judicial authority established in Article 7(5) of the American Convention. 67. To constitute a real control mechanism in the face of unlawful and arbitrary detention, the judicial review must be carried out promptly and in such a way as to guarantee compliance with the law and the detainee’s effective enjoyment of his rights, taking into account his special vulnerability.54 As stated previously, the judge is the guarantor of the rights of any person in the State’s custody and therefore has the task of preventing and ending unlawful and arbitrary detentions and guaranteeing a treatment that accords with the principle of presumption of innocence. In the case sub judice, the procedure during which the judge of the case received Juan Carlos Bayarri, personally, for the first time (supra para. 66), when the latter made his preliminary statement pleading guilty to committing several criminal acts, did not encompass appropriately those aspects that could support the lawfulness of his detention in order to exercise control of it. In addition, the judge did not order a medical appraisal to determine the causes of the alleged victim‘s state of health, even though he showed signs of severe traumatism (infra paras. 90). Moreover, the Court observes that, after having taken his preliminary statement, the judged ordered that Juan Carlos Bayarri be transferred to a penitentiary center without ordering pre-trial detention, as established in the Code of Criminal Procedure (supra para. 55, 56 and 64). It was only three months later, on February 20, 1992, that this was finally ordered. All the above shows that the judicial intervention was not an effective means of controlling the lawfulness of the actions taken by the police officials responsible for the detention and custody of Juan Carlos Bayarri and reestablishing his rights. 68. Based on the above, the Court finds that Mr. Bayarri was not brought promptly before a competent judge following his detention and that the judge did not exercise effective judicial control of the detention, thus violating Article 7(1), 7(2) and 7(5) of the Convention. B) Right to be tried within a reasonable time or to be released 51 Tibi v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 119; case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Iñiguez, supra note 9, para. 84. See also, United Nations. Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, supra note 47, principle 37. 52 Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Iñiguez, supra note 9, para. 85. 53 Cf. statement made by Vicente Luis Palo, Head of the Fraud Division of the Argentine Federal Police, made on June 16, 1992, before the National Criminal Court of First Instance No. 13 of the Capital of the Argentine Republic (file of attachments to the pleadings and motions brief, folios 3443 to 3445); and statement made by Juan Carlos Bayarri on January 8, 1992, before the National Criminal Court of First Instance No. 13 of the Capital of the Argentine Republic (file of attachments to the pleadings and motions brief, folios 3334 to 3338). 54 Cf. Eur. Court HR, Iwanczuk v. Poland (App. 25196/94) Judgment of 15 November 2001, para. 53.