58 j) the guarantees set forth in Article 7(5) of the Convention seek both judicial review of any deprivation of liberty and to control the time that a person remains detained or incarcerated. Judicial review is the suitable control mechanism to avoid arbitrary and unlawful detentions. The objectives of presentation before a judge or other judicial authority are: to assess whether there are sufficient legal reasons for the arrest and whether pre-trial detention is required, to safeguard the wellbeing of the detainee, and to avoid abridgment of the detainee’s fundamental rights; k) Daniel Tibi was never taken before the judge who was hearing the case. And there is no evidence that the judge went to the penitentiary where Mr. Tibi was detained; l) if the detainee is taken before an official who is not a judge, international jurisprudence has asserted that he must fulfill three requirements: be authorized by law to carry out judicial functions, fulfill the requirement of ensuring independence and impartiality, and have the authority to review the reasons for the detention and, if appropriate, to order release. In the instant case, Daniel Tibi was taken before a prosecutor, he never appeared before a judge, and said prosecutor did not fulfill the aforementioned requirements; m) in Ecuador the accused simply do not appear before a judge, in other words, the requirement that this be done “promptly” is never fulfilled; and n) in Ecuador preventive detention is not used exceptionally, but rather is the rule. In this case there was no strong, univocal, and direct evidence as grounds for a grave, precise, and coherent presumption against Mr. Tibi, to justify detention lasting over two years. Pleadings of the State 93. The State argued that: a) it has complied with the necessary legal requirements for any detention, that is: “persons can only be detained if they have participated in, or they are suspected to have participate in, acts defined as crimes,” and “the only objective of the detention must be to ensure that the suspect of a crime does not flee and to ensure that he appears before a competent judge;” b) The detention and deprivation of liberty of Mr. Tibi and the other accused persons were more than necessary, as the wrongs being investigated are publicly actionable offenses. The accused were never deprived arbitrarily of their liberty, but rather on the basis of serious presumptions and after a judicial operation; c) the fact that the police report on the investigation conducted by the National Police before the Public Prosecutor was sent to the competent judge two days after the detention shows that Mr. Tibi was brought before the judicial authorities without violating the term “promptly” used in Article 7(5) of the Convention. It can be concluded that the two days before the detainee was brought before the judge was not an excessive period, all the more so