167. Moreover, when interpreting Article. 7(4) in relation to juveniles, the provisions of Article 40(2)(b)(ii) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child should be taken in account, which establishes the right of every child “to be informed promptly and directly of the charges against him or her, and, if appropriate, through his or her parents or legal guardians.” 204 Also, the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (The Beijing Rules) establish that “[u]pon the apprehension of a juvenile, her or his parents or guardian shall be immediately notified of such apprehension, and, where such immediate notification is not possible, the parents or guardian shall be notified within the shortest possible time thereafter.” 205 168. The Commission and the representatives alleged the failure to notify the family promptly about what had happened to Eduardo Landaeta. However, the Court noted that, at 5.30 p.m. on December 29, 1996, Eduardo was allowed to telephone his father and advise him of his situation (supra para. 70). This was approximately 30 minutes after his arrest. In addition, the evidence presented to the Court reveals that several officials were in contact with Eduardo’s parents and referred to his situation, so that the Court considers that the State did not fail to comply with this element of its obligation to notify the detention promptly to the parents of the minor. B.1.3 Judicial control of the deprivation of liberty (Article 7(5)) 169. Regarding the right contained in Article 7(5) of the Convention, the Court has indicated that the purpose of prompt judicial control is to avoid arbitrary and unlawful detentions, bearing in mind that, under the rule of law, the judge is responsible for ensuring the rights of the detainee, 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 principle of the presumption of innocence. 206 170. The Court finds that the State must ensure, at least, that if children and adolescents are detained as a measure of last resort: (1) they are duly identified, and their condition as minors and the applicable special measures of protection are established; (2) they are brought promptly before a judge or an authority with jurisdiction for juveniles; (3) their parents or guardian are notified as soon as possible and they communicate with their family, and (4) they have prompt access to a lawyer or legal counsel. 207 171. In this case, the lack of judicial control is particularly serious, because the unlawful and arbitrary detention, without judicial control and, moreover, without considering Eduardo Landaeta’s condition as a juvenile, resulted in his death while in police custody. Consequently, the Court will rule on: (a) determination, ex officio, of the age of a minor, and (b) prompt judicial control in the case of minors. B.1.3.1 Determination, ex officio, of the age of a minor 204 In this regard, the Committee on the Rights of the Child has interpreted the words “prompt and direct information of the charge(s)” of Article 40(2) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, to mean “as soon as possible, and that is when the prosecutor or the judge initially takes procedural steps against the child.” United Nations, Committee on the Rights of the Child. General Comment No. 10, supra, para. 47. 205 United Nations. Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (The Beijing Rules). Adopted by General Assembly Resolution 40/33, of 29 November 1985, Rule 10.1. 206 Cf. Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 129, and Case of J. v. Peru, supra, para. 143. 207 Cf. IACHR. Juvenile Justice and Human Rights in the Americas, OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc 78, adopted on July 13, 2011, para. 253, and Case of Bulacio, supra, para.132. 44