29 89. Thus, the Court has considered as true the following facts by virtue of the principle of [...] silence from the plaintiff or an elusive or ambiguous reply can be interpreted as acceptance of the facts of the application, at least while the opposite would not appear in the warrant or from the legal conviction. 43 90. The Court points out that Article 2 paragraph 20 literal g of the Political Constitution of Peru of 1979, then in force, states that: No one could be detained but by a written commandment and motivated by the judge or by police authorities in flagrant felony. In every case the detainee must be available, within 24 hours or distance term, to the corresponding court. Terrorism, espionage, and illegal drug traffic cases in which preventive detention can be carried out by police authorities of the presumed liable parties, in a term not over fifteen natural days, rendering information to State Attorney’s Office and to the judge, who can assume jurisdiction before due date. 91. The Court considers that even though the facts stated in the application regarding the fact that Nolberto Durand and Gabriel Pablo Ugarte Rivera were detained without a warrant or having been found guilty of flagrant felony, or lessened by the State also, the Peruvian Constitution itself exempted cases of terrorism from this rule. On the other hand, and regarding the accused detention term, it is convenient to observe that the quoted constitutional notion only authorized detention by a term not over 15 days with the obligation to render an account to the State Attorney’s Office and the corresponding jurisdictional agency. As has been previously stated (supra para. 59.d and 86), Mr. Durand Ugarte was presented before the competent jurisdictional agency on March 4, 1986, that is, 17 days after his detention. Mr. Ugarte Rivera on that same day, that is, 18 days after his detention, both cases after elapsed the 15 days term allowed by the Political Constitution of Peru and, as a result, violating Article 7(5) of the Convention. 92. As a consequence, the Court states that the State violated, to the detriment of Nolberto Durand Ugarte and Gabriel Pablo Ugarte Rivera, Articles 7(1) and 7(5) of the American Convention. XIII VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 7(6) AND 25(1) JUDICIAL PROTECTION 93. Regarding the violation of Articles 7(6) and 25(1) of the Convention, the Commission stated that: a) the Court has interpreted Article 25 of the Convention to guarantee, inter alia, a simple and prompt recourse or any other effective recourse for the protection of the fundamental rights of the person; b) the right to effective tutorship includes habeas corpus or freedom protection, while allowing that a different authority from the one ordering and implementing deprivation of liberty, to determine detention legality. For a 43 cf. Godínez Cruz, Case, supra note 9, para. 144; Velázquez Rodríguez Case, supra note 9, para.138.