with when depriving a person of his liberty will cause this deprivation to be unlawful and contrary to the American Convention.”77 58. The Inter-American Court has held that the “causes and reasons” for the detention must be provided “at the time it occurs,” which “constitutes a mechanism to avoid illegal or arbitrary detentions from the very moment of imprisonment and, at the same time, ensures the individuals right to defense,” 78 and that “the information about the motives and reasons for the arrest necessarily supposes, first, providing information on the arrest itself. The detained person must understand that he is being detained. Second, the agent who carries out the arrest must inform him in simple language, free of technical terms, about the essential legal grounds and facts on which the arrest is based. Article 7(4) of the Convention is not satisfied by the mere mention of the legal grounds.”79 Thus, the Court has held that a State violates Article 7(4) of the Convention when it has not proven that its authorities informed the detained person of the reasons and grounds for their detention. 80 59. In addition, Article 7(5) of the Convention provides that when any person is detained, he or she is entitled to be promptly brought before a judicial authority for review of said detention, as a suitable means of control to prevent arbitrary and unlawful arrests. Prompt judicial control is a measure intended to avoid arbitrary or unlawful arrests, bearing in mind that, under the rule of law, the judge is responsible for guaranteeing the rights of the detained person, authorizing the adoption of precautionary or coercive measures when strictly necessary and, in general, ensuring that the accused is treated in a manner in keeping with the presumption of innocence.81 60. With regard to this guarantee, the Commission has considered: The single most important protection of the rights of a detainee is prompt appearance before a judicial authority responsible for overseeing the detention. And that the right to request a decision on the lawfulness of the detention is the fundamental guarantee of the constitutional and human rights of the detainee deprived of his liberty by agents of the State.82 61. Likewise, the Inter-American Court has held that “the terms of the guarantee established in Article 7(5) of the Convention are clear in what refers to the fact that the person arrested must be taken before a competent judge or judicial authority, pursuant to the principles of judicial control and procedural immediacy” in order to enable “protection of the right to personal liberty and to grant protection to other rights, such as life and personal integrity.” The Court has also specified that “the simple awareness of a judge that a person is detained does not satisfy this guarantee, since the detainee must appear personally and give his statement before the competent judge or authority."83 62. In the present case, the Commission notes that, according to the information provided, on May 19, 2000, Mr. Jorge López was detained after being instructed to report to the 11th Metropolitan Police Precinct. The Commission examines below if the State complied with the above obligations. 63. With regard to the legality of the arrest, the Commission notes that, according to Article 12 of the Constitution of Paraguay, an arrest must be made on a written order from a competent authority, except when a person is caught in the act of committing an imprisonable offense. Also, according to that provision, the 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, par. 57. 78 Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of June 7, 2003, Series C. No. 99, par. 82; and 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, par. 70. 79 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, par. 71. 80 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, par. 73. 81 I/A Court H.R., Case of Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of June 24, 2005, Series C. No. 129, par. 61; and Case of Tibi v. Ecuador, Judgment of September 7, 2004, Series C. No. 114, par. 76. 82 IACHR, Report on the Human Rights of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas, December 31, 2011, par. 120. 83 I/A Court H.R., Case of Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of June 24, 2005, Series C. No. 129, par. 78. 77 16