64 authorities to unduly extend the detention period, because this would breach Article 5(3) of the European Convention.138 116. Article 173 of the Criminal Procedures Code of Ecuador set forth that: [t]he detention that Article [172] refers to cannot surpass forty-eight hours, and within this time, if it is found that the detainee was not involved in the crime being investigated, he will be released immediately. If the opposite were the case, the respective criminal proceeding will begin and, if called for, an order of preventive imprisonment will be issued. 117. In the instant case, Mr. Tibi was presented before a Public Prosecutor on September 28, 1995. At that moment he rendered his “pre-trial statement.” The State argued that “the fact that the police report on the investigation conducted by the National Police was forwarded to the competent Judge on September 29, 1995, that is, two days after the detention, shows that he was taken before the judicial authorities without violating in any way the term ‘promptly’ used in Article 7(5) of the Convention”. According to the Commission and the representatives Mr. Tibi did not appear personally and promptly before a Judge or competent authority. 118. This Court deems it necessary to specify certain issues regarding this point. First of all, the terms of the guarantee set forth in Article 7(5) of the Convention are clear regarding the need for the detainee to be brought promptly before a Judge or competent judicial authority, in accordance with the principles of judicial control and procedural immediacy. This is essential to protect the right to personal liberty and to protect other rights, such as the right to life and to humane treatment. The fact that a Judge takes cognizance of the case or receives the respective police report, as the State argued, does not fulfill this guarantee, as the detainee must personally appear before the Judge or competent authority. In the case discussed here, Mr. Tibi stated that he testified before a “notary public” on March 21, 1996, almost six months after his detention (supra para. 90(22)). There is no evidence in the file to warrant a different conclusion. 119. Second, a “Judge or other official authorized by law to exercise judicial functions” must fulfill the requirements set forth in paragraph one of Article 8 of the Convention.139 Under the circumstances of the instant case, the Court deems that the Public Prosecutor of the Public Prosecutor’s Office who received the Mr. Tibi’s pretrial statement, pursuant to Article 116 of the Law on narcotics and psychotropic substances, did not have the authority to be considered an “official authorized by law to carry out judicial functions,” in the sense of Article 7(5) of the Convention, as the Ecuadorian Political Constitution then in force, itself, established in Article 98 which were the bodies authorized to carry out judicial functions and it did not grant this authority to the public prosecutors. Furthermore, the public prosecutor did not have sufficient authority to ensure the alleged victim’s right to liberty and to humane treatment. On the other hand, Article 7(5) of the American Convention sets forth that a detainee “shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to be released without 120. 138 See Eur. Court H.R., Brogan and Others, supra note 137, para. 58-59, 61-62; and see Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 8, para. 73; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez. supra note 3, para. 84; and Case of Bámaca Velásquez, supra note 8, para. 140. 139 See Case of Cantoral Benavides. August 18, 2000 Judgment. Series C No. 69, paras. 74 and 75.