77 5. Any person detained shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to be released without prejudice to the continuation of the proceedings. His release may be subject to guarantees to assure his appearance for trial. 6. Anyone who is deprived of his liberty shall be entitled to recourse to a competent court, in order that the court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his arrest or detention and order his release if the arrest or detention is unlawful. In States Parties whose laws provide that anyone who believes himself to be threatened with deprivation of his liberty is entitled to recourse to a competent court in order that it may decide on the lawfulness of such threat, this remedy may not be restricted or abolished. The interested party or another person in his behalf is entitled to seek these remedies. […] 150. The Court considers that it has been proved (supra para. 125(82) and 125(83)) that, during the incursion in El Aro, in order to facilitate the theft of from 800 to 1,200 head of livestock (infra para. 176), the paramilitary group deprived 17 peasants of their liberty and obliged them, by threat (supra para. 125(82)), to herd the animals for 17 days along the public roads under the custody of members of the Army, who not only acquiesced to the acts perpetrated by the paramilitary group, but also directly participated and collaborated at times, even ordering a curfew in order to facilitate the theft of the livestock. The State acknowledged (supra para. 19), and the ruling of the Attorney General’s Office of September 30, 2002,173 also recognizes (supra para. 125(100)) that, after the paramilitary group that raided El Aro had perpetrated the massacre and the acts of intimidation, they stole the inhabitants’ livestock and imposed on some of residents of this district the task of gathering the livestock and moving it for approximately 17 days. 151. The Court must decide whether these facts give rise to the State’s international responsibility. This requires a careful examination of the conditions in which a specific act or omission that harms one or more of the rights embodied in the American Convention can be attributed to a State Party and, thus, entail its responsibility under international law. 152. The Court will now examine, first, the alleged violation of the right to personal liberty and then, the prohibition of forced labor, because the alleged violations occurred in that chronological order. a) Deprivation of personal liberty 153. In this case, it has been proved (supra para. 125(84)) that 17 peasant from El Aro were deprived of their liberty for 17 days when they were detained by the paramilitary group that controlled the district at the time of the incursion. This incursion occurred with the acquiescence or tolerance of Colombian State agents. Those detained were deprived of their right to liberty in order to oblige them to gather and herd livestock stolen from throughout the region. The Court considers that these detentions occurred illegally and arbitrarily, because they were carried out without an arrest warrant signed by a competent judge or the existence of flagrant necessity. 173 Cf. ruling of September 30, 2002, issued by the Attorney General’s Office (file of attachments to the application, tome III, Appendix 62, folio 1382);