detained person must be taken before a competent judge within no more than 24 hours. 84 The Commission observes that the State has not demonstrated the existence of an order issued by a judge, or that the alleged victim was caught in the act of committing an offense. Likewise, the State did not reference any other rule or information to suggest that the arrest was lawful. 64. With regard to his being informed of the reasons for his arrest, the Commission notes that, according to the indictment, after the alleged victim was arrested, the Commissioner said that he had taken part "in an attempted coup.” Although the Commission does not have precise information as to the manner in which that reference was made, as mentioned in relation to this personal liberty safeguard, the detained person must clearly informed of the "essential legal grounds and facts on which the arrest is based." 85 This is essential in order to enable the detained person to challenge the legality of their detention, and therefore, the burden is on the State to demonstrate that it has effectively met that obligation. 86 Based on the forgoing, the Commission notes there is no document or any other evidence in the record to show that this guarantee was observed. 65. Finally, with respect to judicial control of the detention, the Commission notes that the State has provided no specific information as to the date on which Jorge López first appeared before a judge. Mr. Lopez alleged that he was not examined by medical personnel until approximately fifteen days after his arrest, after which he was visited by a judicial committee composed of a judge, a medical examiner, and other persons. From the evidence in the case, Mr. Lopez was taken into police custody on May 19, 2000. The record shows that on May 26, 2000, the Supreme Court ordered that, within 48 hours, lower court judges throughout the Republic should visit places where people were suspects identified under the state of emergency were located in order to ensure free communication, verify the conditions of detention, and arrange for relevant medical examinations. In that connection, according to the testimony of the witness Juan Carlos Paredes on May 27, by order of the presidency of the Supreme Court several judges of first instance were summoned and instructed to go to places where people were detained under the state of emergency. Mr. Paredes said that he, together with other civil jurisdiction officials, visited the Special Forces Headquarters, and that Mr. López told them that he was subjected to mistreatment at the 11th Police Precinct. Likewise, the record shows that on June 7, 2000, the Fourth Magistrate's Court visited the Special Forces Headquarters to take the statement of Jorge López. 66. From its analysis of that information, the Commission finds that the State has not shown that Mr. Lopez was brought promptly before a judge after his arrest. According to the available information and the allegations of the petitioner, at least one week passed before he had access to a judge, which further supports the submission that the State failed to comply with this guarantee. 67. In light of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the State violated the rights recognized in Articles 7(1), 7(2), 7(4), and 7(5) of the American Convention, taken in conjunction with the obligation to respect rights set forth in Article 1(1) of the same instrument, to the detriment of Jorge López Sosa. B. Right to Humane Treatment 68. The American Convention makes prohibits the use of torture or the cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment of persons under any circumstances. The Commission has noted that “an essential aspect of the right to personal security is the absolute prohibition of torture, a peremptory norm of international law Constitution of the Republic of Paraguay, June 20, 1992. Article 12. Detention and Arrest. No one may be detained or arrested without a written order issued by a competent authority, except when they are caught in the act of committing an imprisonable offense. All detained persons have the right: (1) To be informed at the time of the act of the reason for the arrest and of their right to remain silent and to be assisted by a defender of their confidence. In the act of arrest, the authority is obliged to show the written order that ordered it; (2) that the arrest be immediately communicated to his relatives or persons that the detainee indicates; (3) that they be allowed to communicate freely unless, where exceptional circumstances so warrant, a competent court orders incommunicado detention; the incommunicado detention shall not apply to their defense counsel and in no case may it exceed the term prescribed by law; (4) that they have an interpreter, if necessary, and (5) that they be placed, within a period not exceeding twenty-four hours, at the disposal of a competent judge, so that the latter may decide what is appropriate under law. 85 I/A Court H.R., Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of November 21, 2007, Series C. No. 170, par. 71. 86 I/A Court H.R., Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of November 21, 2007, Series C. No. 170, pars. 70–73. 84 17