with the Mayor, to then have to resort to an appeal so a judicial authority can hear it creates barriers to a remedy that should be, by its very nature, simple.100 98. In any case, the Mayor’s decision was appealed and the Constitutional Rights Court considered that Mr. Montesinos pretrial detention had “unjustifiably exceeded the timeframes and terms that the procedural laws” provided for. The IACHR notes that although this Court ordered Mr. Montesinos release, it was not enforced. This led to Mr. Montesinos filing a second habeas corpus appeal a year and a half after the Court’s judgment was issued. In April 1998 the remedy was held inadmissible by the Mayor of the Metropolitan District of Quito and in August of that same year, the Constitutional Court ordered Mr. Montesinos’ immediate release. 99. In view of the foregoing, the IACHR concludes that the habeas corpus appeal, as governed in Ecuador at the time of the events did not meet the requirements of Article 7(6) of the American Convention. Furthermore, in this specific case, although the Constitutional Rights Court ruled the remedy admissible, prison authorities did not comply with it for a long period of time and measures were not taken to enforce this ruling. As a result, in practice, Mr. Montesinos had no effective legal remedy to ensure oversight of his deprivation of liberty and therefore the State violated to his detriment Article 7(6) of the American Convention in connection with the obligations set forth under Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. Furthermore, given the lack of compliance with the favorable ruling, the State also is responsible for the violation of Article 25(2)(c) of the American Convention. B. Right to humane treatment and rights to a fair trial and judicial protection (Articles 5,101 8,102 and 25103 of the American Convention in connection with Article 1(1) thereof and Articles 1,104 6,105and 8106 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture) 100. The IACHR has emphasized that the American Convention prohibits the torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment of individuals under any circumstance. The Commission has stated that "an essential aspect of the right to personal security is the absolute prohibition of torture, a 100 I/A Court H.R. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, paragraph 129. 101 Article 5 of the American Convention sets forth in this regard that: 1. Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected. 2. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. 102 Article 8 of the American Convention: “Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature. 2. Every person accused of a criminal offense has the right to be presumed innocent so long as his guilt has not been proven according to law. […].” 103 Article 25(1) of the American Convention: “Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties.” 104 Article 1 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture: “The States Parties undertake to prevent and punish torture in accordance with the terms of this Convention.” 105 Article 6 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture: “In accordance with the terms of Article 1, the States Parties shall take effective measures to prevent and punish torture within their jurisdiction.//The States Parties shall ensure that all acts of torture and attempts to commit torture are offenses under their criminal law and shall make such acts punishable by severe penalties that take into account their serious nature.//The States Parties likewise shall take effective measures to prevent and punish other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment within their jurisdiction.” 106 Article 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture: “The States Parties shall guarantee that any person making an accusation of having been subjected to torture within their jurisdiction shall have the right to an impartial examination of his case.//Likewise, if there is an accusation or well-grounded reason to believe that an act of torture has been committed within their jurisdiction, the States Parties shall guarantee that their respective authorities will proceed properly and immediately to conduct an investigation into the case and to initiate, whenever appropriate, the corresponding criminal process.//After all the domestic legal procedures of the respective State and the corresponding appeals have been exhausted, the case may be submitted to the international fora whose competence has been recognized by that State.” 18