77. Accordingly, both instances of preventive custody were arbitrary and violated the right established in Articles 7.1, 7.3, and 8.2 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Articles 1.1 and 2 of the same instrument, to the detriment of Mr. Gonzalo Cortez. 3. Regarding the habeas corpus appeals 78. With respect to Article 7.6 of the Convention, the Inter-American Court has pointed out that it has its own legal content, consisting of the protection of personal or physical freedom, by means of a judicial decree ordering the appropriate authorities to bring the detained person before a judge so that the legality of the detention may be determined and, if appropriate, order the release of the detainee."75 The Court has also indicated that the right established in Article 7.6 of the American Convention is not fulfilled by the merely formal existence of the remedies it regulates. Those remedies have to be effective, because their purpose, according to Article 7.6 itself, is to elicit a prompt decision "on the lawfulness of the arrest or detention" and, if they are unlawful, to obtain, also without delay, an order for release.76 In the same vein, the IACHR has highlighted, as a basic principle, that access to judicial review of a detention must be granted "as it provides effective assurances that the detainee is not exclusively at the mercy of the detaining authority."77 79. As regards the detention that began in July 1997, the Commission notes that Mr. Cortez did not file a habeas corpus appeal However, the Commission recalls that under the laws in force at the time such an appeal had to be filed with the Mayor. In that regard, both the Commission78 and the Court have established that a habeas corpus filed with an administrative authority does not constitute an effective appeal by the standards of the American Convention.79 Although that remedy could be appealed before a judicial authority, in that regard the Court has maintained that the requirement that detainees had to file an appeal with the May and then have to file an appeal in order for a judicial authority to be cognizant of it creates obstacles hampering a remedy that, by its very nature, should be simple.80 Consequently, the IACHR considers that Mr. Cortez was not in a position to file a judicial remedy with the characteristics required by the American Convention for reviewing the lawfulness of a detention. 80. With respect to the detention of February 28, 2000, the Commission notes that, although Mr. Cortez was released on May 11 of that year as a result of the ruling by the Constitutional Tribunal, that happened after two habeas corpus remedies had been rejected by the Mayor and more than two months after Mr. Cortez was detained. Accordingly, the Commission considers that the habeas corpus remedy with respect to the detention in the year 2000 did not meet simplicity and speed standards either. 81. In light of the foregoing considerations, the IACHR concludes that the Ecuadorian State is responsible for violating the right established in Article 7.6 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Articles 1.1 and 2 of the same instrument, to the detriment of Gonzalo Cortez. B. Right to humane treatment (Article 581 of the American Convention in connection with Article 1(1) thereof) I/A Court HR. Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2010, Series C No. 218. Par. 124. 76 I/A Court HR. Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, par. 63. 77 IACHR Report No. 51/01. Case 9.903. Rafael Ferrer-Mazorra et al. v. United States of America, April 4, 2001, par. 232. 78 IACHR, Report No. 139/10, P-139-10, Admissibility, Luis Giraldo Ordóñez Peralta, Ecuador, November 1, 2010, par. 29; IACHR, Report No. 66/01, Case 11.992, Merits, Dayra María Levoyer Jiménez, Ecuador, June 14, 2001, par. 78-81; IACHR, InformeReport No. 91/13, P910-07, Admissibility, Daria Olinda Puertocarrero Hurtado, Ecuador,November 4, 2013. 79 I/A Court HR. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, par. 128. 80 I/A Court HR. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, par. 129. 81 The pertinent portions of Article 5 of the American Convention provide: 1. Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. 75 15