92. In this case, the Commission notes that Mr. Montesinos was detained on June 21, 1992. As to the fact that it was a prosecutor who took the preliminary statements, the Commission recalls that, in keeping with the Court’s judgement in Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador, prosecutors in these cases: (…) do not have the attributes to be considered an “officer authorized to carry out judicial functions,” in the sense of Article 7(5) of the Convention, since the Political Constitution of Ecuador itself, in force at that time, stated in its Article 98 which were the bodies that had the power to carry out judicial functions and it did not grant that competence to prosecutors.94 93. The Commission has no information on the exact date that Mr. Montesinos appeared before a judge for the first time. The proven facts reveal that the first court ruling on Mr. Montesinos’ deprivation of liberty took place on August 13, 1992, a month and three weeks after his detention. Even from that ruling it is impossible to ascertain precisely when he actually appeared before the above-mentioned judge. 94. This information gives weight to Mr. Montesinos’ description of being held incommunicado for eight days between July 23, 1992 and July 31, 1992. The Commission notes that there is a dispute about when the arrest warrant was issued by the Pinchincha Police Commissioner. Nevertheless, this warrant is not germane to the analysis of this particular Article of the Convention, given that it was not issued by a judicial authority, but rather by the police, who were denounced to have mistreated Mr. Montesinos during the time he was allegedly held incommunicado. 95. Given the above considerations, the Commission concludes that the State violated the guarantee set forth in Article 7(5) of the American Convention in relation to the obligations set forth in Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mr. Mario Montesinos Mejía. 4. The right to a remedy to challenge detention 96. The Inter-American Court has held that Article 7(6) of the Convention “has its own legal content, consisting of the protection of personal or physical freedom, by means of a judicial decree ordering the appropriate authorities to bring the detained person before a judge so that the legality of the detention may be determined and, if appropriate, order the release of the detainee.”95 The Court has likewise held that the right enshrined in Article 7(6) of the American Convention is not exercised with the mere formal existence of the remedies it governs. Those remedies must be effective, since their purpose, under the terms of Article 7(6), is to obtain without delay a decision "on the lawfulness of [his] arrest or detention," and, should they be unlawful, to obtain, also without delay, an "order [for] his release.96 Along the same lines, the IACHR has held as a basic principle that access to judicial review of detention must be granted as it “provides effective assurances that the detainee is not exclusively at the mercy of the detaining authority.”97 97. In September 1996 Mr. Montesinos filed a habeas corpus appeal with the Mayor of the Metropolitan District of Quito, which was ruled inadmissible. Both the Commission98 and the Court have held that a habeas corpus appeal filed with an administrative authority does not constitute an effective remedy under the standards of the American Convention.99 Although said remedy can be appealed before a judicial authority, the Court in this respect has held that making individuals who have been detained file a remedy 94 I/A Court H.R. Case of Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, paragraph 61; and Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, paragraph 80. 95 I/A Court H.R. Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2010 Series C No. 218. Paragraph 124. 96 I/A Court H.R. . Case of Suárez Rosero V. Ecuador. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35. Paragraph 63. 97 IACHR, Report No. 51/01. Case 9903. Rafael Ferrer-Mazorra et al. v. United States of America, April 4, 2001, paragraph 232. 98 IACHR, Report No. 139/10, P-139-10, Admissibility, Luis Giraldo Ordóñez Peralta, Ecuador, November 1, 2010, paragraph 29; IACHR, Report No. 66/01, Case 11.992, Merits, Dayra María Levoyer Jiménez, Ecuador, June 14, 2001, paragraphs 78-81; IACHR, Report No. 91/13, P-910-07, Admissibility, Daria Olinda Puertocarrero Hurtado, Ecuador, November 4, 2013. 99 I/A Court H.R. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, paragraph 128. 17