coercive measures, when strictly necessary, and in general make sure that the accused is treated in a manner consistent with the presumption of innocence.57 60. Regarding this guarantee, in its Report on the Situation of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas, the Commission considered the following: "[T]he single most important protection of the rights of a detainee is prompt appearance before a judicial authority responsible for overseeing the detention. And that the right to request a decision on the lawfulness of the detention is the fundamental guarantee of the constitutional and human rights of a detainee deprived of his liberty by agents of the State.58 61. Likewise, the Inter-American Court has pointed out that "the terms of the guarantee in Article 7(5) of the Convention are clear in what refers to the fact that the person arrested must be taken before a competent judge or judicial authority, pursuant to the principles of judicial control and procedural immediacy." This is" essential for the protection of the right to personal liberty and to grant protection to other rights, such as life and personal integrity." The Court has likewise specified that "the simple awareness of a judge that a person is detained does not satisfy this guarantee, since the detainee must appear personally and give his statement before the competent judge or authority."59 62. Based on the established facts of the case, Mr. Cortez was deprived of liberty on three occasions: January 21, 1997, July 11, 1997, and February 28, 2000. 63. As regards the legality of those detentions, the Commission notes that from Mr. Cortez's statement it transpires that in the first he was shown a detention order issued by the Military Prosecutor of the First Air Force Division On the second occasion, it transpires from the preliminary investigation statement and from his later accounts he was not shown any order to detain him and was not informed of the reasons for his detention. The State did not provide any information or documentary evidence to the contrary. On the third occasion, Mr. Cortez was deprived of liberty after being taken to the Judicial Police. According to his statement, which was not contested by the State producing any evidence to the contrary, he was only shown the original of the arrest warrant three days later. 64. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that the second and third detentions were clearly illegal. As for the first, the Commission observes that the State did not explain the reasons why the Office of the Military Prosecutor had competence to issue the order to detain Mr. Cortez, particularly given his status as someone who had retired from the military. For that reason, the Commission considers that that detention was also illegal. Likewise, judging by Mr. Cortez's description of the detentions and the fact that the State has not disproved them, the IACHR is of the understanding that there was also a failure to provide detailed information regarding the reasons for the detentions. 65. As regards judicial oversight of the detention, the Commission notes that, after being deprived of liberty on July 11, 1997, Mr. Cortez was held incommunicado for 14 days, until he was brought before the competent judicial authority. The impairments of Mr. Cortez's personal integrity due to the above will be referred to later on in this report. On this matter, the IACHR underscores that during the aforementioned period the Ecuadorian State failed to comply with its obligation under the Convention to ensure prompt judicial oversight. 66. In light of the foregoing considerations, the IACHR concludes that the Ecuadorian State is responsible for violating the rights established in Articles 7.2, 7.4, and 7.5 of the American Convention, in conjunction with the obligations established in Article 1.1 of the same instrument, to the detriment of Gonzalo Cortez I/A Court HR. Case of Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, par. 61; and Case of Tibi v Ecuador. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, par. 76. 58 IACHR, Report on the Human Rights of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas, December 31, 2011, par. 120. 59 I/A Court HR. Case of Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, par. 61 [Tr: 78?]; and Case of Tibi v Ecuador. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, par. 78. 57 12