10 former, citing significant precedents, asserts: “The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation”. In a similar vein, OC-16/99 asserted the right of foreign detainees to receive information on their right to seek and receive consular assistance of the State of which they are nationals, pursuant to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. 42. This cannot be otherwise, if we want rights to serve the purpose for which they are enacted and to have the effect attributed to them, which of course is not impunity, but justice. When we say “before the statement”, we mean: prior to any statement before any authority –not only the Public Prosecutor’s Office, not only the court- on which the outcome of the prosecution and, therefore, of the accused and, ultimately of justice, which is put to a test in each concrete case, may depend. It is very well known that, despite statements and efforts to the contrary, the first statement usually defines the direction of the proceeding and determines its outcome. X. Judicial control 43. The Judiciary has been conceived, essentially, to ensure the rule of law in social relations: those among private persons and those between political authorities and citizens. It is the “guarantor power” par excellence. This is the reason why those who exercise judicial functions are required to have so many qualities, and even virtues – above and beyond those usually required of those exercising other types of authority, including those who act as representatives-, and this is also why private individuals are promised access to justice by means of independent, impartial, and competent tribunals. Procedural immediacy is party to this promise. The examining judge, the guarantees judge, the judge who hears the case, have this substantive function. This is what the defendant expects, for the hands of the police or of the public prosecutor not to be the only ones guiding his fate from the moment when the criminal controversy arises. 44. However, many circumstances hinder fulfillment of this promise, inherent to the Rule of Law and to juridical certainty of citizens, who believe they are protected by it. We must note how carefully the constitutional and international texts stipulate that the detainee –whose capture must be based on a court order, unless there is flagrancymust be brought as soon as possible before a judge, and not before any other agent of authority, for the judge, with all the juridical and ethical authority of his mastery of the law, to ascertain whether the conditions that make his detainment legitimate have been met, whether said detainment should continue, and whether it is appropriate to take the following steps along the harsh path of the proceeding. Any omission of this appearance before the judge impedes access to justice, renders the defendant helpless, alters the juridical project of the Rule of Law, transform lawfulness into arbitrariness. In many cases –and certainly in the one that gave rise to the judgment to which I attach my own Opinion- this has not been so: the accused does not meet his judge until the proceeding is well advanced; there is no immediacy; individualization becomes rarified; disclosure is lacking. Can we justify that the first judge a citizen meets is the justice of an international court, when it is not an international court but rather domestic justice that must be the front line –the indispensable, decisive, fundamental front: this we must underline- in the protection of subjective rights? XI. Amparo