137. Pursuant to the standards described above, the Commission finds that, because no review was conducted of the length of the preventive detention in this instance nor of the need to hold him therein, until the petition for habeas corpus relief was filed, it was excessive and became punitive in nature, in violation of Articles 7.5 and 8.2 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 of this same instrument. 3. Judicial Control over the Detention of the Alleged Victims 138. Article 7.5 of the Convention provides that when any person is detained, he or she is entitled to be promptly brought before a judicial authority for review of said detention, as a suitable means of control to prevent arbitrary and unlawful arrests. Immediate judicial control is a measure aimed at preventing arbitrary or illegal detention, insomuch as under the rule of law it is the task of the judge to act as guarantor of the rights of the person in custody, and to authorize the adoption of precautionary custodial measures or measures of coercion, only when it is strictly necessary, and to ensure, in general, that the defendant is treated in such a way that is consistent with the presumption of innocence. 121 139. With respect to this guarantee, in its Report on the Situation of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas, the Commission has argued that “the 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 the detainee deprived of his liberty by agents of the State. 122 140. Likewise, the Inter-American Court has held that “the terms of the guarantee established 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” and in order to provide for “protection of the right to personal liberty and to grant protection to other rights, such as life and personal integrity.” The Court has further held 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.” 123 141. In the case before us, the Commission notes that the alleged victims were arrested on August 2, 1004 and the next day, August 3, 1994, the Chief of Police of Pichincha ordered them to be held in custody for 48 hours. There is no evidence in the case file that any of the alleged victims has given their initial statements to a judge but rather to the Investigating Officer of the Office of Interpol of Pichincha and a prosecuting attorney, and that no defense counsel was present at the time. The Commission notes that it was not until the order to institute trial proceedings was issued on August 17, 1994, and preventive detention was ordered, that the judge ordered that the initial statements of the alleged victims be taken on August 22, 1994. 142. With respect to the fact that the pre-indictment statements are made before a prosecuting attorney, the Commission recalls that based on the holding of the Court in the case of Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador, in this type of case, the representative of the office of the public prosecutor: Does not have the attributes to be considered an “officer authorized to carry out judicial functions,” in the sense of Article 7.5 of the Convention, since the Political Constitution itself, in force at that time, stated in its Article 98 which were the bodies that had the power to carry out judicial function and it did not grant that competence to prosecutors. 124 121 IA Court of HR. Case of Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, para. 61; and Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 76. 122IACHR, Report on the Situation of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas, December 31, 2011, para. 120. IA Court of HR. Case of Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, para. 61; and Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 78. 123 124 IA Court of HR. Case of Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, para. 61; and Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 80. 34