51 lawfulness of the arrest or detention, so that the latter can decide, promptly, on the lawfulness of the deprivation of liberty and, if appropriate, order their release. 215 The Court has emphasized that the authority who must decide on the lawfulness of the arrest or detention must be a judge or a court. The Convention is thereby ensuring that the control of the deprivation of liberty must be judicial. 216 In addition, it has stated that this control “must not only exist formally by law, but must be effective; in other words, comply with the purpose of obtaining a prompt decision on the lawfulness of the arrest or detention.” 217 136. As the State has acknowledged, following the entry into force of Decree Law 25,659 in August 1992, “applications for habeas corpus were inadmissible for detainees accused of, or being prosecuted for, the crime of terrorism established in Decree Law No. 25,475.” 218 The Court notes that the right to contest the lawfulness of the detention before a judge must be guaranteed for the whole time that an individual is deprived of liberty. Gladys Carol Espinoza Gonzáles was unable to benefit from the remedy of habeas corpus if she had wished, because the said legal provision contrary to the Convention was in force throughout her detention. Therefore, as it has in other cases, 219 the Court finds that, following the entry into force of Decree Law No. 25,659, the State violated Article 7(6) of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, to the detriment of Gladys Carol Espinoza Gonzáles. B.5. Conclusion 137. Based on the above, the Court finds that the State is internationally responsible for the violation, to the detriment of Gladys Carol Espinoza Gonzáles, of the following paragraphs of Article 7, in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention: (a) Article 7(1) and 7(2) of the Convention, owing to the failure to record the detention of Gladys Carol Espinoza Gonzáles appropriately; (b) Article 7(1) and 7(4) of the Convention, because she was not advised of the reasons for her arrest and detention or notified of the charges against her in accordance with the standards established in the Convention; (c) Article 7(1), 7(3) and 7(5) of the Convention, owing to the absence of judicial control of the detention for at least 30 days, which meant that the detention became arbitrary, and (d) Article 7(1) and 7(6) of the Convention, in relation to Article 2 thereof, owing to the impossibility of filing an application for habeas corpus of any other action for protection while Decree Law 25,659 was in force. VIII.2. RIGHT TO HUMANE TREATMENT AND TO PRIVACY, AND OBLIGATION TO PREVENT AND PUNISH TORTURE 138. Both the Commission and the representatives of Gladys Espinoza argued violations of the right to humane treatment, as well as failure to comply with the obligation to prevent and punish torture, owing to: (i) the alleged acts of torture, ill-treatment and sexual violence presumably perpetrated against her at the time of her arrest and during her detention on the premises of the DIVISE and the DINCOTE in April and May 1993; (ii) the regime for execution of the sentence and the overall detention conditions to which she was subject in the Yanamayo Prison, and (iii) the allege torture of which she was a victim on August 5, 1999, in that prison. 215 Cf. Habeas Corpus in Emergency Situations (Arts. 27(2), 25(1) and 7(6) American Convention on Human Rights), supra, para. 33, and Case of Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 375. 216 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, supra, para. 128, and Case of Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 376. 217 Cf. Case of Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador, supra, para. 97, and Case of Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 376. 218 219 Cf. Decree Law No. 25,659 of August 7, 1992 (evidence file, folio 1971). Cf. mutatis mutandis, Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits, supra, paras. 52, 54 and 55; Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru, supra, paras. 182 to 188; Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru, supra, paras. 166 to 170; Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Peru, supra, paras. 114 and 115, and Case of J. Vs Peru, supra, para. 171.