125. In the particular circumstances of this case, given the determination already made, this Court finds that the arguments of the Commission and the representatives regarding the arbitrary nature of the detentions refer to elements of the unlawfulness that has already been declared, and that they therefore do not require further analysis. B.1.2 Information on the reasons for and judicial review of the detentions 126. With the aim of preventing unlawful or arbitrary detentions, Article 7 of the Convention—in its subparagraphs 4 and 5—calls for the charges and the reasons for the detention to be communicated, as well as for judicial review of the detention or holding. 127. The first “refers to two guarantees for the individual who is being detained: (i) oral or written information on the reasons for the detention, and (ii) notification of the charges, which must be in writing.” 107 The information on the reasons for the detention must be provided at the time of the detention. 108 The agent carrying out the detention must communicate “in simple language, free of jargon, the facts and the fundamental legal grounds for the detention.” 109 In the case of an allegation that the State failed to fulfill this obligation, i.e., that it failed to take an action, it is the State’s responsibility to prove the contrary. The argument that a detained individual was in fact informed of the reasons for their detention is a positive one, which means that it can be proven. Moreover, “the State’s defense cannot be based on the [alleged victim's] impossibility of providing evidence that, in many cases, cannot be obtained without the cooperation of the State.” 110 128. Regarding the second part, in order for the judicial review of detentions to constitute an effective safeguard against unlawful and arbitrary detentions, it must be exercised “promptly,” “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 keeping with the presumption of innocence.” 111 The Court has stated, with respect to Article 7(5) of the Convention, that “[t]he fact that a Judge takes cognizance of the case or receives the respective police report [...] does not fulfill this guarantee, as the detainee must personally appear before the Judge or competent authority.” 112 was challenged domestically. Neither the parties nor the Commission, in the international proceedings before the Court, have put forward objections regarding the decisions made by the Constitutional Court. 107 Cf. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220, para. 106, and Case of Guerrero, Molina et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of June 3, 2021. Series C No. 424, para. 105. 108 This “is a mechanism to avoid illegal or arbitrary detentions, from the very moment when a person is deprived of his or her liberty. It also ensures the right to defense of the detainee.” (cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 82, and Case of Guerrero, Molina et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 105 and footnote 110). 109 Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs, supra, para. 71, and Case of Guerrero, Molina et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 105 and footnote 110. 110 Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 135; Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs, supra, para. 71, and Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, Members, and Activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of May 29, 2014. Series C No. 279, para. 258. 111 Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs, supra, para. 81, and Case of Guerrero, Molina et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 105 and footnote 111. 112 Case of Tibi v. Ecuador, supra, para. 118. 28