Specifically, the rights of the foreign detainee oblige the State Party, if asked by the detainee, to act as a faithful channel125 and, consequently: to inform the competent consular post of the detainee’s situation, and to transmit, immediately, “any communication addressed to the consular post” by the detainee.126 Lastly, the Vienna Convention places in the hands of the detainee the decision on whether or not to be visited by the consular officer.127 104. The Court must determine whether the State effectively informed Scot Cochran of his right. The case file reveals that the State proceeded to advise the United States Embassy of Scot Cochran’s detention on January 20, 2003, the day of his arrest, when the Special Criminal Court of San José ordered notification of the decision ratifying the order of pre-trial detention,128 and subsequently issued an official communication in order to provide this notification.129 The Court understands that, as the State argued, this notification was served within the framework of a bilateral agreement on consular relations between Costa Rica and the United States of America130 and that the respective consulate was indeed informed of Scot Cochran’s detention.131 In addition, the Court considers that, when the judicial decision was presented to him for his signature, Scot Cochran was aware of his right to receive consular assistance, and this occurred when his pre-trial detention was ordered a few hours after his arrest. 105. Based on the above, the Court notes that, in the instant case, Scot Cochran was informed of his right to receive consular assistance only a few hours after his detention and the Court also notes that, during that lapse, no actions were taken that infringed his rights. Indeed, the only scheduled procedure was the reception of his unsworn statement, which did not take place because Scot Cochran refused to provide this. Consequently, the alleged victim was aware of his right to receive consular assistance before he gave his first statement in the proceedings, pursuant to the standards established by this Court (supra paras. 100 to 102). 106. Furthermore, even though the letter sent to the United States Embassy contained an error in the alleged victim’s name, the letter was accompanied by the judicial decision ordering the pre-trial detention of Scot Cochran and this contained his personal details.132 This Court also notes that, even though Scot Cochran stated that he had not read the document in which the consular authorities were notified of his detention,133 the case file records that he received it and both he and his lawyer signed 125 Article 36.1.b) of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. 126 Article 36.1.b) of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. The relevant part of Article 36.1.c) of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations indicates that “consular officers shall refrain from taking action on behalf of a national who is in prison, custody or detention if he expressly opposes such action.” 127 Cf. Ruling of the Criminal Court of San José, at 6:55 p.m. on January 20, 2003, ordering six-months pre-trial detention for Scot Cochran (evidence file, folios 7329 to 7337). 128 129 Cf. Notification of the decision requiring that the United States Embassy in Costa Rica be informed of the situation of Scot Cochran (evidence file, folio 7339). Cf. Legislative Assembly of Costa Rica, Consular Convention between the Republic of Costa Rica and the United States of America, in force since February 11, 1950, adopted by Law 1129 of January 25, 1950. 130 131 At the time of the facts, the Consulate of the United States of America occupied the same building as the Embassy and all correspondence was received there. Cf. Ruling of the Criminal Court of San José, at 6:55 p.m. on January 20, 2003, ordering six-months pre-trial detention for Scot Cochran (evidence file, folios 42 al 49). 132 133 Cf. Statement made before the Inter-American Court by Scot Cochran during the public hearing held on November 9, 2022. 30