32 74. It has been proven that Luis Alberto Cantoral-Benavides was held for many days without knowing the reasons for his arrest or the charges against him (supra para. 63. a. and e.). 75. Also, the Court considers that the trial of Mr. Luis Alberto Cantoral-Benavides in the military criminal court violated Article 8(1) of the American Convention, which refers to the right to a fair trial before a competent, independent and impartial judge (infra para. 115). Consequently, the fact that Cantoral-Benavides was brought before a military criminal judge does not meet the requirements of Article 7(5) of the Convention. Also, the continuation of his detention by order of the military judges constituted arbitrary arrest, in violation of Article 7(3) of the Convention. 76. The legal principle set forth in Article 7(5) of the Convention was not respected in this case until the accused was brought before a judge in the regular jurisdiction. In the file, there is no evidence of the date on which this occurred, but it can be reasonably concluded that it took place in early October 1993, since on October 8, 1993, the 43rd Criminal Court of Lima ordered that the investigation stage of a trial be opened against Cantoral-Benavides. 77. Therefore, the Court concludes that the State violated, to the detriment of Luis Alberto Cantoral-Benavides, Article 7(1), 7(2), 7(3), 7(4) and 7(5) of the American Convention. XI VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 RIGHT TO HUMANE TREATMENT 78. As regards the violation of Article 5 of the Convention, the Commission alleged that: a) Mr. Cantoral-Benavides was subjected to physical and psychological violence by police authorities while held incommunicado at DINCOTE, and by naval personnel, in an attempt to get him to incriminate himself. He was not held incommunicado in order to prevent the obstruction of the investigation of the facts, nor was this an exceptional measure; b) the fact that Mr. Cantoral-Benavides was held incommunicado “arbitrarily,” and the prison conditions in which he was held, constituted cruel and inhuman treatment that caused him suffering and psychological trauma; c) the persons investigated in trial No. 634-93 before the regular court, and who were being held at the same time as Mr. Cantoral-Benavides, affirmed that “they were subjected to torture similar to that imposed on” him while he was held by the police. The investigation conducted by the Office of the Public Prosecutor of the petition related to the rape of Mrs. María de la Cruz Pari established that several detainees were taken to the beach at night by members of the police, “which in itself constitutes an irregular procedure which is not in keeping with the rules of procedure of the internal legal system of Peru;” d) the State “did not deny or challenge the facts that had been denounced, limiting itself, instead, to saying that the complainant had not proven the facts he had denounced;” and