37 155. Thus, the Commission notes that although José Agapito Ruano Torres’s detention was legal, in that a warrant for his arrest had been issued in accordance with Article 13 of the Constitution of El Salvador,192 it became arbitrary.193 The Commission has stated that people can only be deprived of their liberty through a judgment arrived at during a trial in which they were able to defend themselves,194 which was not the situation in Mr. Ruano Torres’s case. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that the State did violate Article 7.3 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 thereof, with respect to Mr. Ruano Torres. 156. In addition, the Commission notes that on December 7, 2000, Mr. Ruano Torres filed a habeas corpus remedy with the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, asserting that his arrest had been arbitrary. Later, after receiving no response, on January 3 and February 19, 2001, he filed expansions of the habeas corpus remedy, requesting that an investigator be sent to the his neighborhood to verify that he was not known by the alias Chopo. It was not until August 7, 2001, that the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court ruled on the habeas corpus filing by resolving to keep Mr. Ruano Torres in prison. 157. Article 7.6 of the American Convention is one of the basis for the protection of the right to personal liberty by a judicial body.195 Thus, the habeas corpus remedy is the ideal means for securing the liberty of a detained person.196 158. The Commission finds that in the case at hand, the habeas corpus remedy was ineffective, because the judicial authorities failed to pursue the minimal formalities needed to determine whether Mr. Ruano Torres’s arrest had been arbitrary. Moreover, it took nine months for the habeas corpus remedy to be resolved, which is an unreasonable delay, particularly in light of Mr. Ruano Torres’s situation. In conclusion, the Commission finds that the State did violate Article 7.6 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 thereof, with respect to José Agapito Ruano Torres. B. The alleged violations of the right to humane treatment and the investigations related to those facts 1. The violence during his arrest and the torture allegations 159. First of all, the Commission notes that there is a dispute over whether the violence used against Mr. Ruano Torres in accordance with the established facts constituted a form of torture or a legitimate use of force. 160. The IACHR has underscored that the American Convention prohibits the use of torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatments or punishment in any circumstance. The Commission has 192 Article 13 of the Constitution of El Salvador: Administrative detention shall not exceed a duration of seventy-two hours, during which time the detainee must be referred to a competent judge, along with the formalities carried out. 193 IACHR, Report No. 172/10, Case 12.561, Merits, César Alberto Mendoza and other (Prison and life sentences for adolescents), Argentina, November 2, 2000, para. 179. 194 IACHR, Report No. 64/99, Case 11.778, Merits, Ruth del Rosario Garcés Valladares, Ecuador, April 13, 1999, para. 51. 195 I/A Court H. R., Case of Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador, Judgment of June 24, 2005, Series C No. 129, para. 85. 196 I/A Court H. R., Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala, Judgment of November 25, 2000, Series C No. 70, para. 192.