of effectiveness (effet utile), this Court does not consider it necessary to analyze the pertinent arguments and facts under Article 25 of the Convention. 117 141. Article 7(6) of the Convention protects the right of every detained person to recourse to a competent court, with the aim that the court would promptly rule on the lawfulness of the deprivation of liberty and, if appropriate, order the person's release. 118 The Court has specified that the remedies available for ensuring this right “must not only exist formally in the legislation, but they must also be effective, that is, they must fulfill the objective of obtaining, without delay, a decision on the legality of the arrest or detention.” 119 142. The Court notes that during the first detention and for at least the first 17 days of the second, Mr. Cortez, unlawfully deprived of his liberty and under an authority without jurisdiction to hear the case, remained in solitary confinement. Such a situation hinders a detained person’s ability to exercise their right to file judicial remedies in defense of their freedom of movement. Moreover, with respect to all three of Mr. Cortez’s detentions, it is important to recall that habeas corpus petitions were to be submitted to the mayor—an administrative authority (supra para. 38). In this regard, the Court has already established that such a regulation of habeas corpus is contrary to the Convention. This Court has stated that “Article 7(6) of the Convention is clear when it establishes that the authority who must decide on the lawfulness of the ‘arrest or detention’ must be a judge or court. The Convention is thereby ensuring that control of deprivation of liberty must be of a judicial nature. Although he may have been granted competence by law, a mayor is not a judicial authority.” 120 143. In addition, even though the State argued that Mr. Cortez could have made use of the “liberty amparo,” it clarified in its final written arguments that if the victim had presented that remedy, it would have been handled by the President of the Court of Military Justice. As has been stated previously, and as was decided by the domestic authorities, the military courts did not have jurisdiction in this case (supra paras. 59 and 92). Accordingly, as the remedy would have been processed before an authority without jurisdiction, it cannot be deemed an appropriate judicial remedy in this case. B.4 Conclusion 144. The Court has noted that any violation of subparagraphs 2 through 7 of Article 7 of the Convention will necessarily entail the violation of Article 7(1). 121 145. Accordingly, bearing in mind the violations already determined, the Court declares that Ecuador violated Gonzalo Orlando Cortez Espinoza’s rights to personal liberty and to the presumption of innocence by infringing Articles 7(1), 7(2), 7(4), and 7(5) of the American Convention in conjunction with Article 1(1), as well as Articles 7(1), 7(3), 7(6), and 8(2) of the Convention in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2. Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 77, and Case of González et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 124. 118 Cf. Habeas Corpus Under the Suspension of Guarantees (Arts. 27(2), 25(1), and 7(6) of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-8/87 of January 30, 1987, para. 33, and Case of González et al. v. Venezuela. Merits and reparations, supra, para. 101. 119 Cf. Case of Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, para. 97, and Case of González et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 101. 120 Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs, supra, para. 128, and Case of Herrera Espinoza et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 165. Due to the mayor’s lack of competence, it is unnecessary to analyze the representatives’ arguments about the lack of substantiation in the administrative authority’s decisions in response to the habeas corpus petitions filed by Mr. Cortez. 121 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs, supra, para. 54, and Case of Habbal et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 62. 117 31