39 the alleged victim from having the opportunity to have access to an effective legal remedy to challenge his detention. As a consequence, they considered that the State is responsible for the violation of Articles 7(6) and 25 of the Convention. 121. The State held that the domestic legal system, that establishes the legality of administrative actions, also provides a broad range of remedies in force, those of which were available to Mr. Vélez, with the legal assistance provided by the State through the Ombudsman’s Office or by means of assistance of the Consulate of Ecuador, who was aware of the situation of his fellow citizen. However, Mr. Vélez Loor did not request assistance to challenge the lawfulness of the proceeding conducted by the National Office of Immigration, nor did he take any action oriented to expedite some of the mechanisms of judicial control at his disposal. Furthermore, it referred to the lack of formality and effectiveness of the writ of habeas corpus in the arrests ordered by the National Office of Immigration of the Ministry of Interior and Justice. 122. As may be observed, the State has objected to any statement regarding a violation of Articles 7(6), 8(2)(h), and 25 of the Convention (supra paras. 59 y 66), based on that, at the time of the events, there were no adequate and effective domestic remedies to review the lawfulness of the arrest of Mr. Vélez Loor. In this respect, the Court notes that the State based its position on the review of the lawfulness of the penalty of deprivation of liberty ordered by Order N° 7306 of December 6, 2002, but it did not mention the arrest ordered by means of Order N° 1430, of November 12, 2002. 123. Accordingly, the Court recalls that Articles 7(6), 8(2)(h), and 25 of the Convention relates to different aspects of protection. In this chapter, the Court will analyze whether the State offered Mr. Vélez Loor the possibility of having recourse to a competent judge or 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 pursuant to Article 7(6) of the Convention. Moreover, the Court notes that even though the Commission independently alleged the violation of Article 7(6) of the Convention, the representatives requested the Court to declare the violation of such norm in conjunction with Article 25 of the Convention for the same facts. By virtue of the fact that Article 7(6) of the Convention has its own legal content and the principle of effectiveness (effet utile) is interrelated to the duly protection for all the rights enshrined in the treaty, the Tribunal considers it is unnecessary to analyze such provision in connection with Article 25 of the Convention.123 The possibility of appealing the penalty imposed by means of Order 7306 shall be analyzed in section g) infra (para. 173 to 181). 124. In fact, as it has been mentioned, Article 7(6) of the Convention has its own legal content, which consists of the protection of personal or physical freedom, by means of a judicial decree ordering the appropriate authorities to bring the detained person before a judge so that the lawfulness of the detention may be determined and, if appropriate, the release of the detainee be ordered.124 125. Firstly, the Court observes that, according to Article 88 of Decree Law 16 of 1960, all the resolutions of the Migration Office of the Ministry of Interior and Justice were subjected to the following administrative remedies: 1) request for reconsideration, before the Director of the Migration Office and 2) the appeal, before the Ministry of Interior and Justice.125 123 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro, supra note 60, para. 77. 124 Cf. Habeas corpus in Emergency Situations (Arts. 27(2), 25(1) and 7(6) American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-8/87 of January 30, 1987. Series A No. 8, para. 33. 125 Cf. Decree Law N° 16 of June 30, supra note 80, folios 1155.