61. Article 7(5) of the Convention stipulates that the detention of an individual must be subject to prompt judicial review.46 In this regard, the Court has indicated that immediate judicial control is a measure intended to avoid arbitrary or illegal detention, bearing in mind that, under the rule of law, it is the judge who must guarantee the rights of the individual detained, authorize the adoption of preventive or coercive measures when this is strictly necessary and, in general, ensure that the accused is treated in a manner consequent with the presumption of innocence.47 62. Article 26 of the Haitian Constitution provides that “no one may be detained more than 48 hours unless he has been brought before a judge who has been asked to determine the legality of the arrest and the said judge has confirmed the arrest by a duly-founded decision.” 63. In the instant case, Mr. Fleury was detained for 17 hours in the Bon Repos Police Station and was released before the competent authority was able to assess the legality of his arrest. As already indicated (supra paras. 56 and 59), the police did not have any real reason for detaining Mr. Fleury and did not attempt to open an investigation against him or to inform the competent authority of his detention. It is evident that any individual subject to any form of deprivation of liberty must be brought before the competent authorities to ensure, among other matters, his rights to personal liberty, personal integrity, and the guarantees of due process, and this must be effected immediately and, at most, within the maximum time frame for detention established by law, which in Haiti is 48 hours. Hence, the police or administrative authorities must demonstrate whether there were legitimate reasons or circumstances for failing to bring someone promptly before the competent authorities. However, in this case, having found that the detention of Mr. Fleury was illegal from the outset, in violation of Article 7(2), and since neither the Commission nor the representatives provided factual data or more specific arguments, the Court will not analyze the facts under Article 7(5) of the Convention. 64. Based on the above, the Court declares that the State violated the right to personal liberty, recognized in Article 7(1), 7(2), 7(3) and 7(4) of the Convention, in relation to its obligation to respect that right which is established in Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mr. Fleury. VII.3 RIGHT TO PERSONAL INTEGRITY A. Arguments 65. The Commission argued the violation of the right to personal integrity,48 for the following reasons: (a) the acts of which Mr. Fleury was a victim were intentional, since the 46 Article 7(5) of the American Convention establishes that: Any persons detained shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to a trial within a reasonable time or to be released without prejudice to the continuation of the proceedings. His release may be subject to guarantees to ensure his appearance for trial. 47 Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 84, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico, supra note 45, para. 93. 48 Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights establishes that: 18