38 Tribunal considers that Mr. Acosta Calderón was not notified of the charges presented against him, since the legislation that was allegedly violated was not specified in the court order to investigate the alleged crime of November 15, 1989, issued by the Tribunal of Lake Agrio, instead it simply specified the factual basis for the arrest. 120. Consequently, this Tribunal states that the State violated in detriment of Mr. Acosta Calderón the right to receive a prior notification in detail of the accusation presented against him, enshrined in Article 8(2)(b) of the American Convention, in connection with Article 1(1) of the same. d) Regarding the right of defense 121. Articles 8(2)(d) and 8(2)(e) of the Convention establish that: [d]uring the proceedings, every person is entitled, with full equality, to the following minimum guarantees: […] d) the right of the accused to defend himself personally or to be assisted by legal counsel of his own choosing, and to communicate freely and privately with his counsel; e) the inalienable right to be assisted by counsel provided by the state, paid or not as the domestic law provides, if the accused does not defend himself personally or engage his own counsel within the time period established by law; […] 122. The seventeenth Principle of the United Nations’ Body of Principle for the Protection of All Persons Under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment declares that: 1. A detained person shall be entitled to have the assistance of a legal counsel. He shall be informed of his right by the competent authority promptly after arrest and shall be provided with reasonable facilities for exercising it. 2. If a detained person does not have a legal counsel of his own choice, he shall be entitled to have a legal counsel assigned to him by a judicial or other authority in all cases where the interests of justice so require and without payment by him if he does not have sufficient means to pay80. 123. Ecuador’s Political Constitution in force at the moment in which the facts occurred established that “any person brought to trial for a criminal infraction would have the right to a defense counsel” (Article 19(17)(e)). 124. Despite the previously mentioned constitutional rule, Mr. Acosta Calderón did not have a defense counsel present when answering his initial questioning before the police (supra para. 50(3)). 125. At the same time, the Court observes that Mr. Acosta Calderón, as a foreign detainee, was not notified of his right to communicate with a consular official from his country with the objective of offering the assistance recognized in Article 36(1)(b) of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relationships. The foreign detainee, when arrested and before offering his first statement before the authorities, must be notified of his right to establish contact with a third party, for example, a family member, a lawyer, 80 U.N., Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons Under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, supra note 55, Principle 17.