No one shall be deprived of his liberty except under written order from a competent authority, as appropriate, for the length of time and in keeping with the formal requirements set forth by the law, except in instances of flagrante delicto, in which case he may not be held for more than 24 hours without formal charges, in any case, he may not be held in solitary confinement for more than 24 hours; […]95 110. Likewise, the 1983 Code of Criminal Procedure96 established: Art. 172.- In order to investigate the commission of a criminal offense, prior to bringing the respective criminal action, the competent Judge may remand an individual in custody, either as a result of personal knowledge or of oral or written reports from National Police or Judicial Police agents or from any other person, which establish proof of the crime and the appropriate presumption of responsibility. This arrest shall be ordered by means of a warrant that shall meet the following requirements in setting forth: 1.- The grounds for the arrest; 2.- The place and date in which it is issued; and 3.- The signature of the competent Judge. In order to execute the arrest warrant, said document shall be handed over to an Agent of the National Police or the Judicial Police. Art. 173.- The arrests taken up in the article above shall not exceed forty-eight hours, and within that period of time, should it be found that the detainee has not been involved in the crime under investigation, he shall immediately be released. Otherwise, the respective criminal proceeding shall be instituted, and when appropriate, a pretrial detention order shall be issued. 111. The aforementioned Code further provides in Article 174 thereof that: In instances of flagrante delicto, any person may apprehend the perpetrator and take him before a competent Judge or an Agent of the National Police or of the Judicial Police. 112. The Commission notes that Article 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure additionally sets forth as one of the functions of the Judicial Police: “to order and execute temporary detention of persons caught in flagrante delicto, that is in the act of a crime, or against whom there are serious presumptions of guilt and bring them within 48 hours before the respective investigating magistrate.” 113. The inter-American Court has established that, under the provisions of the Constitution and the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ecuador, in order for a detention to be legal, a court warrant is required, except when the person has been apprehended in the act of committing a crime, i.e. in flagrante delicto.97 95The Commission notes that at the time of the arrest of the alleged victims on August 2, 1994, the 1978 Constitution was in effect which was codified in 1993. Law Number 25.RO/183 of May 5, 1993. Available at: http://www.cortenacional.gob.ec/cnj/images/pdf/constituciones/45%201978%202da%20Codificacion.pdf. Said statute was regarded by the Commission as applicable in the merits report of the case of Dayra María Levoyer Jiménez, who was arrested in June 1992. See IACHR, Merits Report 66/01.Case 11.992 Dayra María Levoyer Jiménez (Ecuador), June 14, 2001, para. 29. The Court, in turn, found the statute applicable in the case of Daniel Tibi, who was arrested in 1995. See IA Court of HR, Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 99. 96 1983 Ecuadorian Code of Criminal Procedure. (L. 134-PCL. RO 511: 10-jun-1983). The Commission has addressed application of Articles 54 and 172 of said Code as provisions of law regulating arrests and remand in custody in Merits Reports 64/99, Case 11.778 Ruth del Rosario Garcés Valladares, April 13, 1999 and 66/01.Case 11.992 Dayra María Levoyer Jiménez (Ecuador), June 14, 2001; additionally, it addressed Articles 172, 173 and 174 in its Report on the Human Rights Situation in Ecuador, OEA/Ser.L/II.96, Doc. 10 rev.1 of April 24, 1997. See Chapter VII Right to Personal Liberty. Available at: http://www.cidh.org/countryrep/Ecuadorsp/Capitulo%207.htm. Likewise, the Court considered Articles 172, 173 and 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in examining the Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 99. 28