44 On the State’s duty in this regard, the Court has emphasized that Article 7(4) of the ACHR imposes specific requirements for both agents of the State and third parties who act with the tolerance and 270 agreement of the former and who are responsible for carrying out detentions. 229. The Commission notes that in the instant case, as they alleged both before the Commission and in their statements on the domestic level, Mr. Ignacio Landaeta and Mrs. María Magdalena Mejías learned that their son had been arrested through a phone call he made several hours after his arrest. The petitioners reported that no official communicated immediately with Mr. Ignacio Landaeta and María Magdalena Mejías to inform them of the arrest, of the reasons for it, or the charges against their son. The facts also indicate that the Eduardo José’s parents were unable to have direct contact with him while he was in State custody. 230. In the instant case, the Venezuelan State did not dispute the fact that the parents of the minor child, Eduardo José Landaeta, were not informed of his arrest immediately by the officer who carried out the arrest, nor were they able to have direct contact with their son. In addition, the Commission notes that the available information does not indicate the adoption of any special measure to ensure the rights and interests of the minor child, Eduardo José Landaeta Mejías, once he was arrested. There is no information on notice to the public defender in the matter to guarantee his rights as a detainee and more specifically as a child detainee. The State failed to meet its burden of proof. In this respect, the Commission concludes that the Venezuelan State violated the rights enshrined in Articles 7.1 and 7.4 of the American Convention, in connection with the obligations established in Articles 19 and 1.1 of the same instrument, to the detriment of Eduardo José Landaeta. 4. The right to prompt judicial control 231. The content of Article 7.5 of the American Convention has been established by the InterAmerican Court as follows: “The first part of Article 7.5 of the Convention establishes that the detained person must be brought promptly before a judge. Prompt judicial control is a measure intended to avoid arbitrary or unlawful arrests, bearing in mind that, under the rule of law, the judge is responsible for guaranteeing the rights of the detained person, authorizing the adoption of precautionary or coercive measures when strictly necessary and, in general, ensuring that the accused is treated in a manner in 271 keeping with the presumption of innocence.” 232. In the instant case, the Commission has recognized as proven that when Eduardo José Landaeta was arrested on December 29, 1996, the officers took him to the local police station, from where he was transferred the next day to the Central Command of the Aragua State Police. Subsequently, Eduardo José was ordered transferred to the CTPJ and during the transfer – according to the version of the officers tasked to carry out the transfer – the victim was killed. From the time of the arrest until his death, which occurred two days later, Eduardo José was not brought before a court for judicial control of the deprivation of his liberty. 233. The Commission has established that the Venezuelan State did not indicate the reasons why Eduardo José’s arrest was not submitted to judicial control. On the contrary, over a period of 48 hours the victim was ordered transferred twice, neither time to appear before the competent judicial authority. In this respect, the Commission feels that the Venezuelan State violated the rights enshrined in Articles 7.1 and 7.5 of the Convention Americana, in connection with the obligations established in Articles 1.1 and 19 of the same instrument, to the detriment of Eduardo José Landaeta. 270 I/A Court HR., Maritza Urrutia Case. Judgment of November 27, 2003. Series C, No. 103. para. 71; and I/A Court HR., Juan Humberto Sánchez Case. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C, No. 99. para. 81. 271 I/A Court HR. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C, No. 170. para. 81; I/A Court HR., Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C, No. 110. para. 96; and I/A Court HR., Maritza Urrutia Case. Judgment of November 27, 2003. Series C, No. 103. para. 66.