39 101. Consequently, the Court verifies that, since the moment of the arrest of the victims, the Army agents had more than one means to transport the alleged victims and bring them, without delay, first before the Public Prosecutor’s Office and, later, before the judicial authority, at least, on May 3, 1999. In addition, it is worth recalling that the authority of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Arcelia visited the place of the events at 8:00 a.m. on May 4th, 1999, and notwithstanding that, it did not take custody of the alleged victims (supra para. 97). 102. According to the case law of the Tribunal (supra para. 93) regarding the competent authority for the transfer without delay, this Tribunal reiterates that Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel should have been brought before a judge as soon as possible, and in the instant case, this did not happen until almost 5 days after their arrest. In this regard, the Court observes that Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel were not placed at disposal of the competent authority within the time established in the American Convention, which clearly requires that the detainee must be “promptly” brought before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power. In this regard, the Court reiterates that in areas of significant presence, where the members of the military institution take control of the internal security, the transfer without delay before the judicial authorities is more important in order to minimize any risk of violation of the rights of the person (supra para. 89). Accordingly, the Court considers that article 7(5) of the American Convention was violated to the detriment of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel. Moreover, given the lack of transfer without delay before the competent authority, the Tribunal considers that this irregularity in the control of the detention made it into an arbitrary detention and it does not consider relevant to make any determination on the cause of the arrest. Therefore, the Court declares the violation of article 7(3) in conjunction with article 1(1) of the American Convention. 5. Alleged lack of information on the reasons for the detention and of notification, without delay, of the charge or charges filed 103. The representatives pointed out that “[i]t is not a disputed fact that Teodoro Cabrera and Rodolfo Montiel were not informed of the reasons for their detention when it was made. Also, as it has been proven, the [alleged] victims [would not have been] informed of the right they are entitled to [...] ‘make contact with a third party, for example, a family member [or] an attorney’.” 104. In its arguments on the alleged violation of the right to defense, the State argued that the victims were informed of the reasons for their detention and of the charges brought against them. 105. This Court has established that, in the light of article 7(4) of the American Convention, the information about the “motives and reasons” for detention shall be provided “once it occurs,” which is a mechanism to avoid unlawful or arbitrary detentions from the very moment that the person is deprived of his liberty and, in turn, ensures the right to defense of the individual.139 Second, this Court has mentioned that the agent who carries out the arrest must inform in simple language, free of technical terms, about the essential legal grounds and facts on which the arrest is based. Article 7(4) of the Convention is not satisfied by the mere mention of the legal grounds.140 139 Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras, supra note 119, para. 82; Case of Yvon Neptune v. Haití, supra note 49, para. 107; Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela, supra note 99, para. 147. 140 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador, supra note 99, para. 71; Case of Yvon Neptune v. Haití, supra note 49, para. 107; and Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela, supra note 99, para. 147.