refer specifically to these documents. Moreover, they did not provide information about the regular procedure to check the detainees’ physical conditions or health at the time of the arrest. 253. Regarding the alleged violation of the personal liberty of the four Sarayaku members, the Court notes that, contrary to what was indicated by the representatives, the Pastaza District Prosecutor opened a preliminary inquiry against them on January 28, 2003.313 The record of the preliminary inquiry shows that, although no court order was issued, the arrest was the result of alleged criminal acts committed by these individuals, who were detained at the scene of the incidents.314 The Court observes, on the one hand, that between the time of the arrest of the four Sarayaku members at one of the heliports opened in their territory (line E 16), and their handover to the National Police at Puyo, they had been “investigated” by private security personnel (supra para. 252). However, the representatives did not provide information on the applicable legal regime, nor did they specifically allege a violation of their right to personal liberty, because they had been questioned by people who, apparently, were not competent authorities. On the other hand, these four people were subjected to a precautionary measure of deprivation of liberty by decision of the First Court of Pastaza (supra para. 99), without the court record indicating whether the prosecution and judicial authorities had duly justified the need for this measure based on the procedural requirement cited in that situation, namely, the danger of failure to appear in court. However, the representatives did not argue that the foregoing entailed a specific violation of Article 7(3) of the Convention, nor did they report or provide evidence to enable the Court to analyze whether they were detained arbitrarily or for unlawful reasons. 254. Consequently, the Court does not have sufficient evidence to allow it to conclude that the State is responsible for the alleged violations of the rights recognized in Articles 5 and 7 of the American Convention and in Article 6 of the Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. VIII.3 RIGHTS TO A JUDICIAL GUARANTEES315 AND TO JUDICIAL PROTECTION316 A. Arguments of the parties 255. The Commission argued that the State had violated the right to judicial guarantees and judicial protection for several reasons: (i) the application for amparo was not processed in the usual manner and there were unexplained delays in the procedure, because it was not decided and nor was a hearing held; (ii) the remedy was ineffective because the precautionary measure ordered was not complied with, and (iii) the State has not provided any information to conclude that it conducted an effective investigation into the complaints related to the various incidents of violence and threats against members of the Sarayaku People. 256. The representatives agreed with the Commission’s observations and added that the judge with jurisdiction over the application for amparo had not convened the hearing under the legal terms established by the Constitution and the Constitutional Control Act. They argued that the State had violated the guarantee of due process by failing to comply with the precautionary measure ordered, 313 Cf. Prosecutor’s Investigation 069-2003 (evidence file, tome 16, folios 9096 and 9097) 314 Cf. Prosecutor’s Investigation 069-2003, folios 9096 and 9097. 315 Article 8.1 of the American Convention establishes: “1. Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature.” 316 Article 25 of the American Convention stipulates: “1. Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 2. The States Parties undertake: a) to ensure that any person claiming such remedy shall have his rights determined by the competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State; b) to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy; and c) to ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.” 72