65 prejudice to the continuation of the proceedings.” Since Daniel Tibi’s detention was illegal and arbitrary, the Court does not deem it necessary to address whether or not the time between his detention and his release surpassed the limits of what is reasonable. 121. Based on the above, the Court deems that the State did not comply with its obligation to promptly bring Daniel Tibi before a competent judicial authority, as required by Article 7(5) of the Convention. 122. Therefore, the Court concludes that the State breached Article 7(1), 7(2), 7(3), 7(4) and 7(5) of the American Convention, in combination with Article 1(1) of that same Convention, to the detriment of Daniel Tibi. IX VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 7(6) AND 25 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION (RIGHT TO PERSONAL LIBERTY AND RIGHT TO JUDICIAL PROTECTION) Pleadings of the Commission 123. The Commission argued that: a) filing of the habeas corpus remedy or “amparo de libertad” seeks to ensure prompt review of the lawfulness of a detention, as well as protection of the life and right to humane treatment of the detainee. The alleged victim was denied the judicial protection of the law, to which Article 25 of the Convention refers. The two “amparo de libertad” remedies filed by Mr. Tibi within the term set forth in the law “should have led to his immediate release;” b) Article 458 of the Criminal Procedures Code of Ecuador sets forth that the Judge who hears this remedy must order the immediate presence of the detainee at a hearing and issue a ruling in 48 hours; and c) Procedures followed in this case were inconsistent with the law and with the purpose of the remedy. The alleged victim suffered judicial delay in processing his habeas corpus petitions, which demonstrated their ineffectiveness and the consequent lack of judicial protection. Pleadings of the representatives of the alleged victim and his next of kin 124. The representatives of the alleged victim and his next of kin argued that: a) Article 458 of the Criminal Procedures Code in force at the time of the facts enshrined the “amparo de libertad” or judicial habeas corpus remedy, which enabled challenging the lawfulness of the provisional detention and of the preventive imprisonment, before a higher court; b) Mr. Tibi filed two “amparo de libertad” remedies. The first was submitted on July 1, 1996, and it argued that there was no evidence linking Mr. Tibi with the crime of which he was being accused. The High Court of Guayaquil took 22 days to issue a ruling. The amparo remedy became