49 whether to release him or her or to maintain the deprivation of liberty. 205 Prompt judicial control is a measure aimed at avoiding arbitrary or unlawful detentions, taking into account that, under the rule of law, it is for the judge to ensure the rights of the detainee, to authorize the adoption of precautionary or coercive measures when strictly necessary and, in general, to ensure that the detainee is treated in a way that is consequent with the presumption of innocence. 206 The prompt judicial review of the detention is especially relevant when applied to captures made without a court order. 207 Even though this right was suspended (article 2, paragraph 20(g), supra para. 112), this suspension cannot be considered absolute and, therefore, the Court must examine the proportionality of what happened in this case. 208 130. It is an undisputed fact that, in the context of the fight against terrorism, the State issued Decree Laws No. 25,475 and No. 25,744 of May 5 and September 27, 1992, in relation to the crimes of terrorism and treason. Article 12(c) of the former established that a person presumably implicated in the crime of terrorism could be kept in preventive detention for no more than 15 calendar days, with the obligation of informing the Public Prosecution Service and the criminal judge within 24 hours. According to article 2(a) of Decree Law No. 25,744, this 15day period could be extended for a similar term without the person being brought before a judge (supra para. 115). On previous occasions, the Court has indicated that this type of provisions is contrary to the Convention, 209 in the sense that “[a]nyone detained or retained must be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power.” 131. Regardless of whether in flagrante delicto existed in this case (supra para. 108), the Court notes that the evidence provided in this case is not consistent as regards the time during which the detention of Gladys Espinoza lacked judicial control; in other words, until June 24, 1993, as argued by the Commission and the representatives, or until May 17, 1993, as indicated by the State (supra paras. 103.c, 104.c and 105.c). On the one hand, Gladys Espinoza has stated that her first appearance occurred on June 24, 1993, when she was brought before the Special Military Court; 210 on the other hand, during the proceedings instituted against Gladys Espinoza for the crime of treason there is no reliable evidence of when the State complied with the obligation of the judicial control of the detention. In this regard, it should be considered: first, that in a note of the DINCOTE of May 17, 1993, namely, 30 days after the detention of Gladys Espinoza, the Military Prosecutor filed a complaint before the Investigating Judge of the Court Martial for the crime of treason against her (supra para. 76). This note indicated that she was “made available as a detainee.” However, the Court understands that making a person available is not necessarily the same as bringing a person before the competent authority in keeping with the above-mentioned standards (supra para. 130). Second, although on June 1, 1993, the Military Investigating Judge of the case decided to open the pre-trial proceedings for the crime of treason and issued a detention order, there is no evidence that, on that occasion, Gladys Espinoza was brought before a judge (supra para. 77). Third, on June 5, 1993, Gladys Espinoza gave a preliminary statement before the Special Military Judge and then, on June 25, 205 Cf. Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 118, and Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2010. Series C No. 218, para. 109. 206 Cf. Case of Bulacio v. Argentina, supra, para. 129, and Case of Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 371. 207 Cf. Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 88, and Case of J. v. Peru, supra, para. 143. 208 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, paras. 109 to 111, and Case of J. v. Peru, supra, para. 143. 209 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 110; Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, para. 73, and Case of J. v. Peru, supra, para. 144. 210 Cf. Statement made by Gladys Espinoza to representatives of APRODEH and CEJIL in the Chorrillos Women’s Prison on September 22, 2009 (evidence file, folios 1459 and 1460).