maintains that the liberation of Mr. Vélez could not be achieved earlier due to the fact that the Director of Migration had discussed the case by telephone with the consulate and informed it that she would only authorize the deportation of detainees for this kind of crime when the period of detention had been completed. In fact, however, Mr. Vélez Loor was detained for ten months and was deported back to Ecuador with passage obtained by the Ecuadorian Embassy through a private businessman. 55. The Commission is of the opinion that detention pursuant to Decree Law Nº 16 of June 30, 1960 raises questions of the “arbitrariness of the arrest or detention” of Mr. Vélez Loor, (under Article 7.3 of the American Convention, as well as questions regarding Mr. Vélez Loor’s right to challenge the detention and to defend himself against the two year prison term (under Article 7.5 and (6)). In addition Mr. Vélez Loor was held in different prisons and not in the detention center at Coiba where he was supposed to perform “agricultural work” pursuant to the Decree Law that authorized his detention. In this context, the Commission also recognizes that the petitioner has alleged a violation of Article 21 in that his property was taken from him when he was detained by the authorities. Since the State argues that he had no possessions on him when he was detained, in the next stage of the proceedings the petitioner will be required to prove these allegations. 56. The fact that this was a situation in which administrative authorities imposed a two year prison sentence on an “illegal” or undocumented person, allegedly, in transit, without the possibility of judicial review, constitutes a possible violation of Article 2 of the American Convention regarding the responsibility to adopt measures to give effect to the American Convention at the national level, Article 8.1 regarding the right to due process and Article 25 regarding access to justice. The petitioner also argues a violation of his right to due process in that the law was only a decree law issued by the Executive and not a law debated and sanctioned by Congress before being approved by the Executive. 57. In addition, the petitioner points out that Mr. Vélez Loor was subjected to conditions of detention that were at times accompanied by cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment, including torture in alleged violation of Article 5 of the American Convention. At the same time, he asserts that he did not have access to legal aid during his detention. Moreover, he states that he did not receive medical attention of the kind necessary to enable him to cope with the after-effects of his alleged torture. 58. the out the With regard to the complaint made about alleged torture, the State refers to the reports of Directorate of Migration and Naturalization [and] the Directorate of Prisons so as to point that the procedures for deportation and the imposition of penalties were in compliance with law. 59. The Inter-American Commission considers that the alleged torture described in the petition and the lack of information about criminal investigations and penalties relating to these facts (denial of justice) constitute a possible violation of Articles 5, 8, and 25 of the American Convention and Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. Moreover, the allegations about a lack of suitable medical attention to treat the aftereffects of torture amount to a possible violation of Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) of the Convention. At the same time, the Commission will analyze the legal and prison rules that apply to undocumented immigrants and the effect they may have had on the possible violations of rights which have been alleged in this case. There will be an investigation of the extent to which the authorities abided by guarantees relating to consular assistance and established procedures as a requirement for deportation. In conclusion, all the foregoing considerations will be analyzed in connection with the obligation to respect and guarantee rights referred to in Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. 60. As regards a possible violation of Article 10 of the American Convention, a right to compensation, if someone has been sentenced by a final judgment through a miscarriage of justice, the Commission considers that this provision is not applicable to the situation at hand. Mr. Vélez Loor was not subject to a judicial proceeding, but rather was the alleged victim of an administrative order, that permitted him no right to participate in the proceedings nor to defend himself. There is no possible “miscarriage of justice” since there was no question of justice being dispensed by a judicial authority. 11