18 Procedure used for the detention 62. The Inter-American Commission asked the Court to declare the violation of Article 7(3) of the American Convention, because Mr. Bayarri was detained using methods incompatible with human rights (supra para. 52). In this regard, the Court reiterates, in keeping with its most recent case law, that the arbitrariness mentioned in Article 7(3) of the Convention has its own legal content,48 which only needs to be analyzed in the case of detentions that are considered lawful. In this case, the Court has already established that Mr. Bayarri was detained unlawfully (supra para. 61), so that it is not necessary to analyze the violation of Article 7(3) of the American Convention. Prompt presentation before a competent judge and effectiveness of the judicial control 63. The first part of Article 7(5) of the Convention stipulates that any person detained must be brought promptly before a judge. The Court has determined that this is a measure designed to avoid arbitrary or unlawful detentions, taking into account that, under the rule of law, the judge is responsible for guaranteeing the rights of the detained person, authorizing the adoption of precautionary or coercive measures when strictly necessary, and generally endeavoring to ensure that the accused is treated in a way that is consequent with the presumption of innocence.49 64. According to Articles 2 and 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, after their arrest, detainees must be brought before a competent judge, who will proceed, as soon as his normal working hours commence, to question them and to take the necessary measures to order their preventive detention or their release (supra paras. 55 and 56). 65. According to the case file in the instant case, on November 19, 1991, the Head of the Fraud Division of the Argentine Federal Police made Mr. Bayarri available to Court of First Instance No. 25, and the Secretary of this court ordered that he remain detained.50 For this procedure, Mr. Bayarri was not taken personally to the court; consequently, it does not the letters rogatory corresponding to the different judicial districts, in order to proceed for the ‘immediate detention’ of those named above” (helpful evidence submitted by the State, exp7176cuerpo2_92.pdf, page 182); note of November 18, 1991, in which the Head of the Fraud Division, Police Chief Vicente Luis Palo, asked the Judge of First Instance No. 25 to issue “the letters rogatory corresponding to each of the accused” (helpful evidence submitted by the State, exp7176cuerpo2_92.pdf, page 180); official communication of November 18, 1991, issued by National Court of First Instance No. 25, signed by its Secretary, Eduardo Larea, recommending the arrest of Juan Carlos Bayarri and Carlos Alberto Benito to the Head of the Argentine Federal Police” (helpful evidence submitted by the State, exp7176cuerpo2_92.pdf, page 188); letter rogatory issued by National Court of First Instance No. 25 addressed to the Federal Judge of La Plata on November 18, 1991 (helpful evidence submitted by the State, exp7176cuerpo2_92.pdf, page 46); official communication of November 20, 1991, in which the Head of the Fraud Division of the Argentine Federal Police, Vicente Luis Palo, informed Federal Court No. 1 of La Plata that the search order issued could not be executed because Mr. Bayarri had been detained in the jurisdiction of Court No. 25 (helpful evidence submitted by the State, exp7176cuerpo2_92.pdf, page 248), and official letter of November 20, 1991, in which the Head of the Fraud Division of the Argentine Federal Police, Vicente Luis Palo, annulled the search ordered “because of the detention of the citizen, Juan Carlos Bayarri, in the Capital” (helpful evidence submitted by the State, exp7176cuerpo2_92.pdf, page 241). 47 United Nations. Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment. Adopted by the General Assembly in Resolution 43/173, of 9 December 1988, Principle 4. 48 Cf. case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez, supra note 9, paras. 93 and 96. 49 Cf. Bulacio v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 129; case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Iñiguez, supra note 9, para. 81; and case of Yvon Neptune, supra note 14, para. 107. 50 Cf. procedure for granting a measure and consultation of Court of First Instance No. 25 of November 19, 1991 (helpful evidence submitted by the State, exp7176cuerpo2_92.pdf, page 227).