56 (supra 70.1). Neither Juan Humberto Sánchez nor his next of kin present at the time of the detention were told the reasons for it, thus breaching Article 7(4) of the American Convention to the detriment of Juan Humberto Sánchez. 83. The objective of Article 7(5) of the Convention is for the detention of a person to be subject to judicial review, the latter being the appropriate control mechanism to avoid arbitrary and illegal arrests. In the sub judice case, contrary to the provisions of said subparagraph, in the second detention of Juan Humberto Sánchez he was not “br[ought] before the competent authority for his trial [within 24 hours of his detention]” either, as ordered by the aforementioned Article 71 of the Political Constitution of Honduras. It is evident that Juan Humberto Sánchez was not brought before the competent authority, as follows from the silence of the military authorities the day after his second detention, despite the insistence of the stepfather (supra 70.9); from the ineffectiveness and delay in the processing of the habeas corpus remedy (supra 70.1), 70.19 and 70.20/infra 121, 122 and 123); and from the state in which the body was found, with obvious signs of torture (supra 70.10/infra 96 to 100); situations that are all consistent with the pattern of behavior of the authorities at the time of the facts. In this regard, the Court notes that the State agents who conducted the second detention of Juan Humberto Sánchez at no time intended to submit their actions to judicial review or to a control mechanism; on the contrary, they acted in a clandestine manner to cover up the detention and possible extra-legal execution of Juan Humberto Sánchez. Thus, there was a violation of Article 7(5) of the American Convention to the detriment of Juan Humberto Sánchez. 84. Both the Inter-American Court and the European Court of Human Rights106 have attached special importance to judicial control of detentions so as to prevent arbitrariness and illegality. An individual who has been deprived of his liberty with no judicial control, as occurs in some cases of extra-legal executions, must be released or immediately brought before a judge, because the essential content of Article 7 of the Convention is protection of the liberty of the individual against interference by the State. The European Court of Human Rights has affirmed that while the term “immediately” must be interpreted according to the special characteristics of each case, no circumstance, however grave, grants the authorities the power to unduly prolong the detention period without affecting Article 5(3) of the European Convention.107 Said Court emphasized “that detention, not recognized by the State, of a person constitutes a complete denial of said guarantees and one of the most serious forms of violation of Article 5.”108 85. This Court deems that when the arbitrary detention of Juan Humberto Sánchez occurred, within the prevailing pattern of extra-legal executions, he did not 106 Cf. Eur. Court HR, Aksoy v. Turkey. judgment of 18 December 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI, para. 76; and Eur. Court H.R., Brogan and Others judgment of 29 November 1988, Series A no. 145-B, para. 58. 107 Cf. Bámaca Velásquez Case, supra note 25, para. 140; Castillo Petruzzi et al. Case. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 108; and Eur. Court H.R., Brogan and Others judgment of 29 November 1988, Series A no. 145-B, supra note 106, para. 58-59, 61-62. 108 Cf. Bámaca Velásquez Case, supra note 25, para. 140; Villagrán Morales et al. Case (“Street Children” Case), supra note 103, para. 135; and Cf. Eur. Court HR, Kurt v. Turkey judgment of 25 May 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 III, para. 124.