officials during his detention, the criminal proceedings, and the appeals filed in the case.110 VII-1 RIGHT TO PERSONAL LIBERTY111 AND JUDICIAL GUARANTEES,112 IN PARTICULAR THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION AND EFFECTIVE ACCESS TO CONSULAR ASSISTANCE, IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATIONS TO RESPECT AND TO ENSURE RIGHTS A. Arguments of the parties and observations of the Commission 89. The Commission alleged that Scot Cochran had never been informed of his right to request consular assistance, because the officials who arrested him failed to mention anything regarding this right, even though they were aware that he was not a Costa Rican national. The Commission also argued that neither was Scot Cochran informed of his right to request consular assistance on the morning of January 20, 2003, when his preliminary statement was taken in the Special Unit for Sexual Crimes of the Public Prosecution Service. 90. The Commission indicated that although the case file contains a letter dated January 20, 2003, signed by the criminal judge and addressed to the Embassy of the United States of America in Costa Rica, in which the judge advises that he has decided to order six-months pre-trial detention for Scot Cochran, this notification was not sufficient to consider that Scot Cochran’s right to information on consular assistance had been complied with, because that right signifies the right of any foreigner who is arrested to be informed immediately that he may request the consular services of his country of origin. The Commission indicated that there was no record that the Costa Rican judicial authorities had informed Scot Cochran of his right to information on consular assistance and, during the international proceedings, the State of Costa Rica had not presented any evidence in this regard. Consequently, it asked the Court to declare the violation of the rights established in Articles 7(4) and 8(2) of the American Convention. 91. The representatives argued that, by not informing Scot Cochran of his right to “consular access,” Costa Rica had failed to comply with the obligations imposed by Article 36(1) of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and, consequently, had withheld guarantees of due process contained in the American Convention. 92. The representatives also argued that, when Scot Cochran was detained, the Costa Rica police and judicial authorities were well aware that he was a foreigner and, when entering the residence, they should have informed him of his right to request and obtain consular assistance. They underscored that this failure had had serious consequences, because the consular officers could have provided him with “protection, support and assistance,” collaborating in the preparation of his defense and, particularly in obtaining a competent lawyer. Cf. Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Merits. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 37, and Case of Ruano Torres et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 5, 2015. Series C No. 303, para. 115 110 111 Article 7(4) of the American Convention. 112 Article 8(2) of the American Convention. 26