156. Moreover, in carrying out the arrest, the police failed to inform the brothers Luis and Carlos Eduardo Uzcátegui of the reasons for their arrest, nor did the State provide specific evidence or arguments to show that it fulfilled its obligation to promptly notify them of the charges against them;221 thus, the State also violated the right recognized in Article 7(4) of the American Convention, in conjunction with the provisions of Article 44 of the Constitution, to their detriment. 157. As to the application of Article 7(5) of the Convention in this case, regarding a proper judicial review of the arrest, 222 although the records confirm the allegations made by the parties and the Commission, that the Uzcátegui brothers were held for a period of time that did not exceed 36 hours223, the Court notes that there are insufficient elements to demonstrate the alleged violation of Article 7(5) of the Convention. 158. Finally, with respect to Article 7(6) of the Convention, which protects the right of a detainee to appear before a judge, regardless of the observance of other rights and of judicial actions in the specific case, this implies that the detainee effectively exercises this right, assuming that he can do so and that the State can provide this remedy effectively and resolve the matter.224 In this case, the representatives have not provided information about internal remedies that would have enabled Luis and Carlos Eduardo Uzcátegui to review the legality of their arrest, nor have they alleged or shown that they tried to exercise, or actually had recourse to some type of remedy in this regard. Consequently, it is not appropriate to analyze the facts of the case in light of Article 7(6) of the Convention. 159. For all the above reasons, the Court finds that the State violated the right to personal liberty, established in Article 7(1), 7(2), and 7(4) of the Convention, in relation to the duty to respect said right set forth in Article 1(1) of the same instrument, to the detriment of Luis and Carlos Eduardo Uzcátegui, as well as in conjunction with Article 19 to the detriment of the latter. VI.3 RIGHT TO HUMANE TREATMENT [PERSONAL INTEGRITY] AND FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION 221 Cf., mutatis mutandis, Case of Fleury et al. v. Haiti, para. 60; Case of Cabrera Montiel et al. v. Mexico, paras. 105 and 106; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras, para. 82; and Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, para. 71. 222 Article 7(5) of the American Convention states: “Any person detained shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to be released without prejudice to the continuation of the proceedings. His release may be subject to guarantees to assure his appearance for trial.” It is therefore clear that anyone subject to any form of deprivation of liberty must be brought before the competent authorities, so as to guarantee, among other things, their rights to personal liberty, humane treatment [personal integrity] and guarantees of due process, which must be occur immediately and within the maximum period for detention established by law, which in Venezuela is 48 hours. 223 Cf. Merits Report Nº 88/10 (Merits file, volume (Merits file, volume 1, page 175). 224 Cf. Case of Yvon Neptune Series C No. 180, para. 114. v. 1, page 40) and Brief of pleadings and motions Haiti. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 40 May 6, 2008.