released.204 Gabriel Blas Valencia indicated that he was released from the PTJ after several days.205 On December 20, 2001, Jenny Paola Lulleman and Julia Mamanu Mamani were released. The following day Luis Fernando Lulleman was released.206 136. Among those detained in the PTJ facilities, only Carlos Enrique Castro Ramírez, Alfredo Bazán y Rosas, Víctor Manuel Boggiano Bruzzón, Genaro Ahuacho Luna, Mercedes Valencia Chuquimia, Victoria Gutiérrez Aguilar, Blas Valencia Campos, Oswaldo Lulleman Antezana, Claudia Valencia Alarcón, F.E.P.M., Norma Lupe Alarcón de Valencia, Carlos Eladio Cruz Añez, Elacio Peña Córdova, Freddy Cáceres and Patricia Gallardo Ardúz207 were brought before a judge during the public hearing on precautionary measures held on December 19, 2001. 137. Thus, despite being detained in the PTJ facilities, Edwin Rodríguez Alarcón, Gabriel Valencia Alarcón, Luis Fernando Lulleman Gutiérrez, Jenny Paola Lulleman de Zaconeta, Julia Mamanu Mamani and Carlos Álvaro Taboada were never brought before a judge or other authority; therefore, the Court finds that Article 7(5) of the American Convention was violated to their detriment. 138. Regarding Raúl Oswaldo Lulleman, even though his name appeared among those who attended the public hearing on December 19, according to the testimony of the official of the Human Rights Committee of the Chamber of Deputies who went to the PTJ in response to a complaint by the Lulleman family owing to the disappearance of Raúl Oswaldo, he was in the PTJ facilities in Sucre Street and, therefore, could not have taken part in the said hearing.208 Also, the facts of the case reveal that Raúl Oswaldo Lulleman was deprived of liberty for two years without having taken part in any hearing for the control of precautionary measures. Therefore, this Court also finds the State responsible for the violation of Article 7(5) of the American Convention, to the detriment of Raúl Oswaldo Lulleman. B.1.4. Absence of an effective remedy (Art. 7(6) of the Convention) 139. In this section, the Court will analyze whether the State granted the alleged victims who were brought before a judge the possibility of having recourse to him to take a prompt decision on the lawfulness of their detention and, if this was unlawful, to order their release, pursuant to Article 7(6) of the Convention. 140. Article 7(6) of the Convention has its own legal content which consists in the direct protection of personal or physical liberty by means of the judicial order addressed to the corresponding authorities that they must bring the person detained before a judge so that the latter may examine the lawfulness of the deprivation of liberty and, if appropriate, order that person’s release.209 In its case law, the Court has already asserted that such remedies should not only exist formally in the law, but must also be effective; that is, comply with the objective of obtaining a prompt 204 Cf. Affidavit made by Carlos Álvaro Taboada Valencia on June 14, 2022 (evidence file, folio 12624). 205 Cf. Affidavit made by Gabriel Blas Valencia on June 14, 2022 (evidence file, folio 12633). 206 Cf. Affidavit made by Luis Fernando Lulleman Gutiérrez on June 17, 2022, (evidence file, folio 12782) 207 Cf. Record of public hearing on precautionary measures issued by the Eighth Criminal Investigation Court on December 19, 2001 (evidence file, folio 1764). Cf. Statement made by RVG, official of the Human Rights Committee of the Chamber of Deputies, in the context of the Prosegur case, oral proceedings hearing of April 7, 2003, (evidence file, folio 265). 208 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-8/87 of January 30, 1988, supra, para. 33, and Case of Villarroel Merino et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 24, 2021. Series C No. 430, para. 110. 209 41