40 126. Article 7(6) of the Convention is clear when it provides that the authority that must decide on the lawfulness of the “arrest or detention” must be “a judge or court." The Convention is therefore safeguarding that the control of deprivation of liberty is judicial. Given that, in the instant case, the detention was ordered by an administrative authority, on November 12, 2002, the Tribunal deems that the review by a judge or court is a fundamental requirement to guarantee an adequate control and scrutiny of the administrative acts that affect fundamental rights. 127. In this respect, the Court considers that the Director of the National Migration Office as well as the Ministry of Interior and Justice, though they may be competent by law, they are not a judicial authority in a strict sense; therefore, none of the remedies available through governing channels satisfied the requirements of Article 7(6) of the Convention. Moreover, any other remedy through the governing channels or that would require the prior exhaustion of the remedies available through governing channels126 did not guarantee the direct judicial control of the administrative acts that depended on the exhaustion of such channels. 128. In addition, the Court notes that there existed in Panama, at the time of the events, a judicial remedy that specifically allowed the review of the lawfulness of a deprivation of liberty, which was the writ of habeas corpus, stipulated in Article 23 of the National Constitution.127 Furthermore, the Tribunal notes that there existed a remedy to protect human rights through contentious-administrative channels before Chamber III of the Supreme Court of Justice of Panama, which could have been useful to control the proceedings conducted by the public administration and to protect human rights; also, such remedy did not require the exhaustion of governing channels.128 129. In this respect, the jurisprudence of this Tribunal has also established that these remedies must not only formally exist in the legislation but they must be effective, that is to say, must comply with the purpose of obtaining, without delay, a decision on the lawfulness of the arrest or detention.129 130. In this respect, the Commission noted that between the moment of the detention and the date on which the penalty of imprisonment was imposed, Mr. Vélez Loor did not “have the possibility of being assisted by an attorney of his own choosing nor by a defense attorney provided by the State, had he not exercised his right.” Likewise, the representatives stated that, during the time of his confinement, Mr. Vélez Loor “was not able to communicate with any other person” and that “he did not have legal counsel to defend himself or to appeal the sentence imposed on him at any moment." 126 Cf. Affidavit rendered before a public notary (affidavit) by expert witness Arturo Hoyos Phillips on August 10, 2010 (case file of the evidence, volume IX, affidavits, folios 3733 to 3735). 127 Cf. Political Constitution of the Republic of Panama of 1972 (case file of the evidence, tome VIII, annex 5 to the answer to the application, folios 2659 and 2660); Report rendered before a public notary (affidavit) by expert witness Arturo Hoyos Phillips, supra note 126, folios 3726 to 3727, and Statement rendered by Carlos Benigno González Gómez, supra note 122, folios 3782 to 3783. 128 Cf. Affidavit rendered before a public notary (affidavit) by expert witness Arturo Hoyos Phillips, supra note 126, folios 3734 to 3735. 129 It is enlightening what the Special Rapporteur on Migrants sustained as to that “[s]ome national laws do not provide for judicial review of administrative detention of migrants. In other instances, the judicial review of administrative detention is initiated only upon request of the migrant. In these cases, lack of awareness of the right to appeal, lack of awareness of the grounds for detention, difficult access to relevant files, lack of access to free legal counsel, lack of interpreters and translation services, and a general absence of information in a language detainees can understand on the right to instruct and retain counsel and the situation of the facilities where they are being held can prevent migrants from exercising their rights in practice. In the absence of lawyers and/or interpreters, migrants can often feel intimidated and obliged to sign papers without understanding their content.” United Nations, Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, supra note 84, folio 2029, para. 46.