35 length of time such as the one that elapsed in this case, which has not been justified by the State with sufficient probative elements, constitutes a violation of judicial guarantees. Consequently, it declares that the State has violated Article 8(1) of the Inter-American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Messrs. Chaparro and Lapo. E) RIGHT TO INFORMATION ABOUT CONSULAR ASSISTANCE 162. The Commission maintained that Mr. Chaparro was not informed of his right to communicate with the consulate of his country of origin in order to obtain consular assistance. The State indicated that it had never hindered the intervention of the Chilean consular authorities, since the Chilean Consul in Ecuador visited Mr. Chaparro on the premises of the Model Detention Center where he was detained. 163. There is no probative element in the case file before the Court to show that the State notified Mr. Chaparro, as a foreign detainee, of his right to communicate with a consular official of his country in order to obtain the assistance established in Article 36(1)(b) of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Indeed, on March 5, 1998, the Chilean Honorary Consul in Guayaquil informed Mr. Chaparro’s wife that he had learned of Mr. Chaparro’s detention “through newspaper Articles published in the different media of that city.”100 164. The Court reiterates its consistent case law,101 according to which, when a foreigner is arrested, at the time he is deprived of his freedom and before he makes his first statement before the authorities, he must be notified of his right to establish contact with a consular official and inform the latter that he is in the custody of the State. The Court has indicated that the Consul may assist the detained person during the different defense measures, such as the provision or retaining of legal representation, the obtaining of evidence in the country of origin, the verification of the conditions under which the legal assistance is provided, and the monitoring of the conditions under which the accused is being held while in prison. In this regard, the Court has also stated that the individual’s right to request consular assistance from the country of which he is a national must be recognized and considered in the context of the minimum guarantees essential to provide foreigner nationals the opportunity of adequately preparing their defense and receiving a fair trial. 165. Based on the above, the Court declares that Ecuador violated Article 8(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mr. Chaparro. IX ARTICLE 5102 (RIGHT TO HUMANE TREATMENT) IN RELATION TO ARTICLES 1(1) (OBLIGATION TO RESPECT RIGHTS) OF THE INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION 100 Cf. letter of March 5, 1998, signed by the Chilean Honorary Consul and addressed to Cecilia Aguirre de Chaparro (file of appendixes to the application, appendix 4, folio 832). 101 Cf. Case of Bulacio, supra note 42, para. 130; Case of Tibi, supra note 43, paras. 112 and 195; Case of Bueno Alves, supra note 15, para. 116, and The Right to Information on Consular Assistance in the Framework of the Guarantees of Due Process of Law. Advisory Opinion OC-16/of October 1, 1999. Series A No. 16, paras. 86, 106 and 122. 102 The relevant part of Article 5 stipulates that: 1. Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected. 2. 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 regard for the inherent