current Organic Law for the Protection of Venezuelan Children and Adolescents, which was not in force at the time of the facts. Its article 37 establishes that “the retention or deprivation of personal liberty of children and adolescents must be carried out pursuant to the law and shall be applied as a measure of last resort and during the shortest possible time.” Nowadays in Venezuela, this law also establishes a period of 24 hours to bring the minor before the authorities. It should be noted that, in some States of the Americas, the law establishes a maximum time applicable to such cases ranging from 6 to 24 hours. 214 177. The Court recalls that article 37 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, establishes that the detention of minors must be exceptional and for the shortest possible time. In this regard, the Committee on the Rights of the Child, elaborating on this provision, has indicated that “[e]very child arrested and deprived of his/her liberty should be brought before a competent authority to examine the legality of (the continuation of) this deprivation of liberty within 24 hours.” 215 178. The Court has noted that from the time of Eduardo Landaeta’s arrest at 5 p.m. on December 29, 1996, until the second transfer where he lost his life – at 8 a.m. on December 31 – he had been detained approximately 38 hours without having been brought before a judge or an authority with jurisdiction for juveniles, which, in the Court’s opinion, exceeds the standard applicable to minors for bringing them “promptly” before the competent authority. It should be stressed that, additionally, the second transfer does not reveal the intention of the agents to bring the minor before the competent authority, because the records reveal that he was being taken to the Mariño Police Department. The State has not disproved this fact, or provided evidence to justify or to substantiate clearly the need for these transfers or the duration of the detention, particularly in view of the alleged warnings of Ignacio Landaeta that his son was in danger, owing to the risks that he had reported (supra para. 70), which reveals a violation of the provisions of Article 7(5) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 19 of this instrument, to the detriment of Eduardo Landaeta. B.2 Right to life in relation to the rights of the child 179. The Court will now examine the facts surrounding the death of Eduardo Landaeta in light of its consistent case law on the right to life in relation to the obligation to respect and ensure this right. 214 The Guatemalan Law for the Comprehensive Protection of Children and Adolescents establishes a time limit of 6 hours to bring the minor before the competent authority. The Uruguayan Children’s and Adolescent’s Code has implemented, by law, a time limit of 12 hours for children to remain on police premises and a time limit of two hours for the police authority to inform the judge of the detention. Similarly, the Nicaraguan Children’s and Adolescent’s Code indicates that the police must bring adolescents who are detained before the competent authority within 24 hours. Meanwhile, in the Federal Law on Juvenile Justice, Mexico establishes a limit of 24 hours to inform the Special Juvenile Court about measures that deprive minors of their liberty. Also, in Ecuador, the Children’s and Adolescent’s Code establishes that no adolescent may be detained without charges for more than 24 hours. Other countries in the region apply the same time limit, for example: the Children’s and Adolescent’s Code of the Republic of Honduras; the Law on the Responsibility of Adolescents for Violations of Criminal Law of the Republic of Chile, and the Children’s and Adolescent’s Code of the Republic of Bolivia. In addition, the Code for the Protection of the Rights of Children and Adolescents of the Dominican Republic establishes a time limit of 36 hours, where the ordinary and the special national police have 12 hours to bring the suspect before the Public Prosecution Service, which has 24 hours to bring the minor before a judge. 215 United Nations, Committee on the Rights of the Child. General Comment No. 10, supra, para. 83. The European Court of Human Rights, in the case of Ipek and Others v. Turkey, referred to the standard recommended by the Committee of Ministers of the Member States of the Council of Europe according to which juveniles “should not be detained in police custody for longer than forty-eight hours in total and for younger offenders every effort should be made to reduce this time further.” Cf. ECHR, Case of Ipek and Others v. Turkey, No. 17019/02 and 30070/02. Judgment of 5 March 2009, para. 18. 46