40 must be set free or immediately brought before a judge.85 96. Immediate judicial oversight is a measure that tends to avoid arbitrariness or unlawfulness of detentions, taking into account that in a State in which the rule of law prevails, a judge must guarantee the rights of the detainee, authorize adoption of precautionary or coercive measures, when strictly necessary, and generally seek to ensure treatment that is consistent with the presumption of innocence that protects the accused until his responsibility has been established.86 97. Regarding to the right of every detainee to recourse to a competent judge or court, set forth in Article 7(6) of the Convention, the Court has considered that the “writs of habeas corpus and of "amparo" are among those judicial remedies that are essential for the protection of various rights whose derogation is prohibited by Article 27(2) and that serve, moreover, to preserve legality in a democratic society.”87 In this regard, the judicial guarantees essential for the protection of the human rights not subject to derogation, according to Article 27(2) of the Convention, are those to which the Convention expressly refers in Articles 7(6) and 25(1), considered within the framework and the principles of Article 8, and also those necessary to the preservation of the rule of law, even during the state of exception that results from the suspension of guarantees.88 98. These guarantees, which seek to avoid arbitrariness and unlawfulness in detentions by the State, are reinforced by the role of the State as guarantor, due to which, as the Court has Stated previously, the State “does in fact have the responsibility to guarantee the rights of individuals under its custody as well as that of supplying information and evidence pertaining to what has happened to the detainee”.89 99. Rafael Samuel and Emilio Moisés Gómez Paquiyauri were detained by agents of the Peruvian National Police without a court order and they were not brought before a competent authority; they were also unable to file, by their own means, a 85 See Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 5, para. 73; Case of Bulacio, supra note 6, para. 129; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez, supra note 15, para. 84; Case of Bámaca Velásquez, supra note 68, para. 140; Caso Castillo Petruzzi et al., supra note 75, para. 108; likewise, see Eur. Court H.R., Case of Kurt vs Turkey, Judgment of 25 May 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III, para. 124; Eur. Court H.R., Case of Aksoy v. Turkey, Judgment of 18 December 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI, para. 76. 86 See Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 5, para. 66; Case of Bulacio, supra note 6, para. 129; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez, supra note 15, para. 84; Case of Bámaca Velásquez, supra note 68, para. 140; and Caso Castillo Petruzzi et al. Case, supra note 75, para. 108. 87 Habeas Corpus in Emergency Situations, supra note 75, para. 42; and see Durand and Ugarte Case, supra note 27, para. 106. 88 Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency, supra note 75, para. 38; and see Durand and Ugarte Case, supra note 27, para. 107. 89 Case of Bulacio, supra note 6, para. 138; see Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez, supra note 15, para. 111; Durand and Ugarte Case, supra note 27, para. 65; likewise, see Case of Aksoy v. Turkey, supra note 85, para. 61; Eur. Court HR, Case of Salman v. Turkey, Judgment of 27 June 2000, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2000-VI, paras. 98-99; Eur. Court HR, Case of Timurtas v. Turkey, Judgment of 13 June 2000, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2000-VI, para. 82; Eur. Court HR, Case of Selmouni v. France, Judgment of 28 July 1999, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1999-V, para. 87; Eur. Court HR, Case of Ribitsch v. Austria, Judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A No. 336, para. 34; and Eur. Court HR, Case of Case of Tomasi v. France, Judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A No. 214-A, paras. 108 to 111.