143. Information is not available to the Commission regarding the exact date when the victims first appeared before a judge. Nonetheless, all indications available point to it first being when they were cited to appear before the judge 20 days after being arrested in order give their initial statements. Additionally, their pre-indictment statements were given to an assistant prosecuting attorney who was not suitable to ensure the right to personal freedom and security of the alleged victims. These two elements of fact enable us to reach the conclusion that the State violated the guarantee set forth in Article 7.5 of the American Convention in connection with the obligations provided for under Article 1.1 thereof. 4. Right to recourse to contest the detention 144. Article 7.6 of the American Convention provides that: Anyone who is deprived of his liberty shall be entitled to recourse to a competent court, in order that the court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his arrest or detention and order his release if the arrest or detention is unlawful. In States Parties whose laws provide that anyone who believes himself to be threatened with deprivation of his liberty is entitled to recourse to a competent court in order that it may decide on the lawfulness of such threat, this remedy may not be restricted or abolished. The interested party or another person on his behalf is entitled to seek these remedies. 145. The Court has established that this guarantee as provided for in Article 7.6 of the American Convention 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. 125 The Court has specifically held that Article 7.6 of the Convention clearly establishes that the authority which decides on the legality of an ‘arrest or detention’ must be ‘a judge or court.’ The Convention is therefore ensuring that there is judicial control over the deprivation of liberty. 126 On this point, the Commission has established in Report 66/01 Dayra María Levoyer that: The review of the legality of a detention implies confirming, not only formally but also substantively, that the detention conforms to the requirements of the judicial system and that it does not violate any of the detained person’s rights. That such confirmation is carried out by a judge, invests the proceeding with certain guarantees that are not duly protected if the decision is in the hands of an administrative authority, which lacks the proper legal training and the authority to exercise judicial functions.127 146. The Commission notes that it has information to the effect that only one of the victims, Eusebio Domingo Revelles, was held in preventive detention and pursued a remedy in order to be released. This is consistent with the claim of the petitioner, who confined her arguments regarding effectiveness of the remedy of habeas corpus to the case of this victim. As has been deemed proven by the Commission, Mr. Eusebio Domingo Revelles filed a petition for hábeas corpus relief with the Office of the Mayor and, subsequently, appealed this decision to the Constitutional Court of Ecuador, which upheld the denial. The Commission notes that on the date when the petition for habeas corpus before the Office of the Mayor was decided, which was on August 25, 1998, this remedy was regulated under the 1998 Constitution, 128 which 125 IA Court of HR. Case of Vélez Loor v. Panamá. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2010 Series C No. 218, para. 124. See IA Court of HR, Habeas Corpus under Suspension of Guarantees (Articles 27.2, 25.1 and 7.6 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion Corte OC-8/87 of January 30, 1987. Series A No. 8, para. 33. 126 IA Court of HR. Case of Vélez Loor v. Panamá. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2010 Series C No. 218, para. 126. 127IACHR, Merits Report 66/01.Case 11.992 Dayra María Levoyer Jiménez (Ecuador), June 14, 2001, para. 79. Constitution of 1998 was approved on June 5, 1998, and it was established it would come into force on the day that the President of the Republic took office, which took place on August 10, 1998. 128The 35