27 violate Article 5(3) of the European Convention.63 78. As pointed out in other cases, this Tribunal considers that it is necessary to make some points regarding this subject.64 In first place, 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. This is essential for the protection of the right to personal liberty and to grant protection to other rights, such as life and personal integrity. 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. 79. In the case under analysis, Mr. Acosta Calderón, at the time of his arrest only offered his statement before the Police and a Prosecutor, without the presence of his defense counsel. There is no evidence in the case file that Mr. Acosta Calderón gave any statement before a judge until almost two years after his arrest. In this sense, on October 8, 1991 the same Tribunal of Lake Agrio expressed that “within the process there was not [any preliminary examination statement from the alleged victim], presuming that the clerk of the court of that moment had not included said diligence in the case file,” reason for which it was received on October 18, 1991 (supra paras. 50(23), 50(25), and 50(27)). 80. In second place, a “judge or other official authorized by law to exercise judicial functions” must comply with the requirements established in the first paragraph of Article 8 of the Convention.65 Under the circumstances of the present case, the Court understands that the Prosecutor from the Public Prosecution Service that received the pre-procedural statement from Mr. Acosta Calderón did not have the attributes to be considered an “officer authorized to carry out judicial functions,” in the sense of Article 7(5) of the Convention, since the Political Constitution of Ecuador itself, in force at that time, stated in its Article 98 which were the bodies that had the power to carry out judicial function and it did not grant that competence to prosecutors. Therefore, the prosecutor that acted in this case did not have sufficient powers to guarantee the alleged victim’s right to freedom and personal integrity. 81. Because of this, the Court considers that the State violated, in detriment of Mr. Acosta Calderón the right to be taken, without delay, before a judge or other official authorized by law to exercise judicial power, as required by Article 7(5) of the Convention in relation to Article 1(1) of the same. 82. On the other hand, Article 7(5) of the American Convention states that the detainee “shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to be released without prejudice to the continuation of the proceedings.” Since the arrest of Mr. Acosta Calderón turned arbitrary, the Tribunal does not consider it necessary to analyze if the time that went by between his arrest and the definitive judgment surpassed the limits of what was reasonable. 63 Cfr. Eur. Court H.R., Brogan and Others. Judgment of 29 November 1988, Series A no. 145-B, pars. 58-59, 61-62; see also Case of Tibi, supra note 6, para. 115; Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 57, para. 73; and Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez, supra note 6, para. 84. 64 Cfr. Case of Tibi, supra note 6, para. 118. 65 Cfr. Case of Tibi, supra note 6, para. 119; and Case of Cantoral Benavides. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, paras. 74 y 75.