69 was brought before a competent judicial authority only thirteen days after his detention (supra para. 97(78)). 133. As to the alleged violation of Articles 7(6) and 25 of the Convention for the alleged restrictions to the writ of habeas corpus, the Commission pointed out that despite the fact that Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas was detained before the enactment of Decree-Law No. 25.659 (supra para. 97(2)), the proceedings instituted against him regarding the facts related hereto was the one contemplated in Article 6 of said Decree. As already pointed out, the State acknowledged the facts prior to September 2000 (supra paras. 52 to 60). Based on the foregoing considerations regarding the restrictions to the writ of habeas corpus in effect at the time the alleged victims were tried (supra paras. 111 to 114), the Court considers that Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas was deprived of the right to resort to a competent court so that it may decide on the lawfulness of his detention without delay. 134. In view of the foregoing, and taking into account the partial acknowledgement of the facts by the State (supra paras. 52 to 60), the absence of acts which may be deemed as flagrante delicto, and the lack of an arrest warrant ordering the detention of Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas, the fact that he was brought before the competent judicial authority only thirteen days after his detention, and the restrictions he faced in order to file a writ of habeas corpus at the time he was tried, the Court considers that the State has violated Articles 7(1), 7(2), 7(3), 7(5), 7(6), and 25 of the Convention to his detriment, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, at the time of his detention and during the first judicial proceedings instituted against him. 135. The above violations are precedent to and independent of the fact that the Peruvian courts, by means of the judgment rendered on March 27, 2003 (supra para. 97(89)), regarding the writ of habeas corpus filed by his next of kin, annulled the judgment and some steps of the proceedings brought against him, based on the provisions of the judgment rendered by the Constitutional Court on January 3, 2003 and Legislative Decree No. 926 of February 19, 2003 (supra paras. 97(5) to 97(9)). * d) Regarding the preventive detention of Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas as from the annulment of the first proceedings against him 136. On March 27, 2003, the Constitutional Court (Tribunal Constitucional) declared the writ of habeas corpus on behalf of Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas partially sustained, dismissing “the claim to the extent that it request[ed] his release, on the grounds that […] as the nullity of some stages of the criminal proceedings did not affect the order to commence the pre-trial proceedings, […] the arrest warrant issued therein recover[ed] all its effects,” and pointed out that “the annulment of the procedural effects of the condemnatory judgment, as well as those of the precedent procedural acts, including the prosecution’s case, wo[uld] be subject to Article 2 of Legislative Decree No. 926; [and it found] [the] request for release from prison to be INADMISSIBLE” (supra para. 97(89)). 137. The annulment of the criminal proceedings instituted in the ordinary courts against Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas and heard by “faceless” judges was ordered on May