43 181. On the other hand, the Inter-American Court has established that Article 7(4) of the American Convention “sets forth a mechanism to avoid unlawful or arbitrary conduct from the very act of deprivation of liberty on, and to ensure defense of the detainee. Both the detainee and those representing him or with legal custody over him have the right to be informed of the motives of and 195 reasons for the detention and about the rights of the detainee.” Likewise, in analyzing the violation of Article 7(4) of the American Convention in another case, the Court described the content of that provision in the following terms: […] when the detainee is deprived of his liberty and before making his first statement before the authorities, the detainee must be informed of his right to establish contact with another person, for example, a next of kin, an attorney, or a consular official, as appropriate, to inform this person that he has been taken into custody by the State. Notification to a next of kin or to a close relation is especially significant, for this person to know the whereabouts and the circumstances of the accused and to provide him with the appropriate assistance and protection. In case of notification to an attorney, it is especially important for the detainee to be able to meet privately with him, which is inherent to his right to benefit from a true defense. In case of consular notification, the Court has pointed out that the consul “may assist the detainee in various acts of defense, such as granting or hiring legal counsel, obtaining evidence in the country of origin, corroborating the conditions under which legal assistance is provided, and observing the situation of the accused while he is in 196 prison. 182. In that sense, the IACHR recalls that in accordance with the Inter-American Principles on Detention, if a detained migrant is transferred to another facility, he has the right to “notify or request that the competent authority notify his family or other appropriate persons designated by him” of the transfer and where he is located197 and must be informed “promptly of his right to communicate through 198 appropriate means with a consular office or the diplomatic mission of the State of his nationality.” 183. With regard to Article 7(5) of the American Convention, the Court has underscored that to be brought before a judge “is essential to the protection of the right to personal liberty and to the 199 protection of other rights, such as the right to life and to personal integrity.” Immediate judicial control is a measure aimed at preventing arbitrary or illegal detentions, taking into account that under the Rule of Law, it is the responsibility of the judge to guarantee the rights of the detainee, to authorize the adoption of precautionary measures or coercion when strictly necessary, and, in general, to ensure that the 200 detainee’s treatment Is consistent with the presumption of innocence. 184. For its part, the State, in accordance with Article 7(6), must guarantee that every person deprived of liberty has access to judicial remedies to challenge the legality of his arrest or detention. The Inter-American Court has emphasized that “it is not enough for the resources to exist formally, but, rather, they must be effective, in other words, the individual must have an effective possibility of filing a simple 201 and prompt remedy that enables attainment, if appropriate, of the judicial protection requested.” In that sense, the Commission recalls that the detainee must be granted access to a judicial review of his 195 IA Court H.R., Case Tibi vs. Ecuador. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, par. 109. IA Court H.R., Case Tibi vs. Ecuador. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, par. 112; see, Principles and Best Practices on the Protection of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas, Principio V, available at http://www.cidh.oas.org/Basicos/Basicos.Principios%20y%20Buenas%20Prácticas%20para%20PPL.htm. 197 See also UN, Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, Principle 16(1) (1988), available at: http://www2.ohchr.org/spanish/law/detencion.htm. 198 See also UN, Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under any form of Detention or Imprisonment, Principle 16(2) (1988), available at: http://www2.ohchr.org/spanish/law/detencion.htm; and Principle 16(3) (1988), available at: http://www2.ohchr.org/spanish/law/detencion.htm. 199 IA Court H.R.Case Tibi vs. Ecuador. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, par. 118. 200 IA Court H.R., Case Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. vs. Ecuador. Preliminary exceptions, Merites, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, par. 81; Case Maritza Urrutia vs. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2003. Series C No. 103, par. 66, and Case Bulacio vs. Argentina. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 18,2003. Series C No. 100, par. 129. 201 IA Court H.R., Case Tibi vs. Ecuador. Judgement September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, par. 131. 196