remaining detained for at least 15 days without any form of judicial control must be analyzed, bearing in mind that she was detained without a court order. In cases such as this one, where the initial arrest was executed without a court order, the presentation before a judge is particularly important. Therefore, the Court finds that the measures taken in this case were not those that were “strictly necessary.” In particular, the Court underlines that the suspension of certain aspects of the right to personal liberty cannot signify that the State’s actions can derogate the jurisdictional controls over the way in which detentions are carried out (supra para. 141). Consequently, the Court considers that the failure to bring Ms. J. “promptly” before a judge is not justified by the suspension of guarantees that existed in this case, so that it was arbitrary and, therefore, the State violated paragraphs 1, 3 and 5 of Article 7 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the Convention. 145. Moreover, based on the above conclusions, the Court does not find it necessary to make a specific analysis of whether the search of the building located on Las Esmeraldas Street was in keeping with the Convention. The arguments on the presumed violence used during the initial arrest will be analyzed, as pertinent, in the chapter on the right to personal integrity (infra paras. 308 to 368). 146. With regard to the first search of the house located on Casimiro Negrón Street, the Court notes that, according to the search record, it was carried out with the authorization of J.’s mother, 245 J.’s mother indicated that “[t]hey wanted her to sign some papers. who signed the said record. They said that they were papers that had been seized; there was a list.” She also stated that her 246 The State did younger daughter had refused to sign the record and had therefore been arrested. not question the truth of the statement made by Ms. J.’s mother, while the refusal of J.’s younger sister to sign the record and her arrest appear in the file of this case (supra paras. 87 and 89). Meanwhile, at the domestic level, the presumed victim declared that her mother had been coerced 247 and this could correspond to the assertion of the CVR that many of the to sign a record, witnesses had stated that they were unable to read the records made of the searches, and that “the 248 victim or the family members were required to sign [them].” 147. Despite the above, the Court underscores that, in her statement, J.’s mother did not deny that she had authorized this search. Also, it should be recalled that the statement of the presumed victim cannot be assessed in isolation, but rather in the context of all the evidence in the 249 Likewise, regarding the statement by J.’s mother, this Court finds that, since she is proceeding. a member of the presumed victim’s family and has a direct interest in this case, her testimony 250 cannot be assessed in isolation, but rather in the context of the evidence in the proceedings. Consequently, the Court finds that it does not have sufficient evidence to disprove the fact that, according to the respective search record, J.’s mother authorized the entry into her home of the police agents and, therefore, concludes that the search of the home of Ms. J. on Casimiro Negrón Street did not violate Article 11(2) of the Convention. 245 Cf. Record of house search and seizure of property from the house on Casimiro Negrón Street of April 13, 1992 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 26, folios 3646 and 3650). 246 Cf. Affidavit prepared by [J.’s mother] on June 13, 2006, for the case of Miguel Castro Castro Prison (file of annexes to the motions and arguments brief, annex 1, folio 3000). 247 Cf. Preliminary statement of June 10, 1992, before the Tenth Investigating Court of Lima (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 41, folio 3699). 248 Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, volume VI, chapter 1.4, p. 241. 249 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits, supra, para. 43, and Case of the Supreme Court of Justice (Quintana Coello et al.) v. Ecuador, supra, para. 34. 250 Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 57. 47