42 the judicial proceeding, and therefore the existence of a violation of Article 7(5) of the Convention is not proven. * * * 92. In relation to the right of all detainee to appear before a competent judge or court, enshrined in Article 7(6) of the Convention, the Court has considered that “the proceedings of habeas corpus and legal protection are judicial guarantees essential for the protection of several rights whose suspension is reserved by Article 27(2) and they also help to preserve legality in a democratic society.”90 93. According to the facts, the alleged victim presented several recourses with the objective of obtaining the annulment of the preventive detention and being granted his freedom, including that of habeas corpus (supra paras. 54(24), 54(34), and 54(36)), which were unsuccessful. 94. In what refers to the habeas corpus, in the present case Mrs. Teresa Reyes presented it on behalf of Mr. Alfredo López Álvarez, on July 20, 2001, to “obtain the personal liberty of the aggrieved party[…].” Said recourse was based on the fact that “there had been an unjustified delay in the processing of the criminal case against [the] injured party[…] and based on that she state[d] that his imprisonment had become illegal,” since “as of the date on which the accused was placed in legal custody, until [the moment at which the habeas corpus was presented] more than 50 months had gone by, situation that was made worse with the judgment of nullity issued by the […] [Appellate] Court [of la Ceiba issued on May 2, 2001]” (supra paras. 54(33) and 54(34)). 95. On July 23, 2001 the Appellate Court of la Ceiba declared “said recourse inadmissible[,] considering it out of order.” In this regard, it limited itself to stating that the statement of nullity “did not constitute a violation [of] the constitutional guarantees,” and that “nothing else indicated that the alleged aggrieved parties we[re] illegally detained or that they we[re] being object of abuses or burdens by any authority” (supra para. 54(35)). 96. The analysis by the competent authority of a judicial recourse that debates the legality of the imprisonment can not be reduced to a mere formality, instead it must examine the reasons invoked by the claimant and make express statements regarding the same, according to the parameters established by the American Convention. 97. When examining the habeas corpus the Appellate Court omitted going on record regarding that argued by the alleged victim in the sense that the arrest term was excessive and could constitute a violation of the Convention. This omission shows that the recourse was not effective, in this specific case, in fighting the alleged violation. 98. The Court considers that the different remedies presented in said process were not effective in terminating the preventive detention and obtaining the alleged victim’s freedom. 90 Cf. Case of García-Asto, supra note 7, para. 112; Case of Acosta-Calderón, supra note 18, para. 90, and Case of Tibi, supra note 80, para. 128.