61 in case of flagrant crime, in which case he may not be kept without a formal accusation before the court for more than 24 hours; in any case, he cannot remain incommunicado more than 24 hours. 100. Ecuador’s 1983 Criminal Procedures Code, in force at the time of the facts, established in Article 170 that: [t]o ensure immediacy of the accused in the proceeding, payment of damages and court costs, the Judge may order precautionary measures, whether personal in nature or pertaining to property. 101. Article 172 of that same Code established that: [w]ith the aim of investigating a crime that was committed, before beginning the respective criminal action, the competent Judge may order detention of an individual, whether from personal cognizance or through verbal or written reports of agents of the National Police or the Judiciary Police or of any other person, establishing that the crime was committed and the respective presumptions of liability. This detention will be ordered in a written document that must fulfill the following requirements: 1. 2. 3. Reasons for the detention; Place and date issued; and signature of the competent Judge. To enforce the arrest warrant, this document will be given to an Agent of the National Police or of the Judiciary Police. 102. Likewise, Article 174 of the aforementioned Code set forth that: [i]n case of flagrant crime, any person may detain the perpetrator and take him before a competent Judge or an Agent of the National Police or of the Judiciary Police. In the latter case, the Agent will immediately bring the detainee before the Judge, together with the respective warrant. […] 103. Pursuant to Articles 19(17)(h) of the Political Constitution and 172 and 174 of the Criminal Procedures Code of Ecuador, in force at the time of the facts, a court order is required to detain an individual, unless this person has been caught flagrantly committing a crime. In the instant case, it has been proven that Daniel Tibi’s detention did not comply with the procedure established in said provisions. The alleged victim was not caught in fraganti, but rather was detained while driving his car in the city of Quito, without there being an arrest warrant against him, which was issued the day after said detention, that is, on September 28, 1995 (supra para. 90(13)). In light of the above, Daniel Tibi’s unlawful detention constitutes a violation of Article 7(2) of the American Convention. 104. It has been proven that Mr. Tibi’s detention was based on a single statement by a co-accused, which is forbidden by Article 108 of the Criminal Procedures Code, which established that “in no case will the Judge accept the co-accused as witnesses […]”. In said statement, Eduardo Edison García León stated that “a French individual by name Daniel, […] supplied him with up to fifty grams of [cocaine] two or three times” (supra para. 90(8)). 105. It has been proven that on October 4, 1995 the First Criminal Judge of the Guayas issued a court order to investigate the alleged crime and ordered preventive