incompatible with the Convention, does not constitute an effective recourse to question the deprivation of liberty under the terms of Article 7(6). For its part, the State claimed that the alleged victim could have obtained a judicial review of the precautionary measure and that the decision of the Examining Magistrate considered all the defense’s arguments as well as the issues and the vicissitudes of the personal situation of the alleged victim. 122. Article 7(6) protects the right of anyone deprived of his or her liberty “to recourse to a competent court, in order that the court may decide, without delay, on the lawfulness of the detention or arrest and order [the] release if the arrest or detention is unlawful.” The Court has held that an objective of this right is to allow judicial control over deprivations of liberty.147 123. The Court considers that the issues regarding the motives of the judge and the justification of the extension of pre-trial detention, which were analyzed above and were found arbitrary, had as a consequence that the remedies presented by the alleged victim were not effective. The Court, therefore, holds that the State is also responsible for violating Article 7(6) of the Convention. VI.2. RIGHT TO THE JUDICIAL PROTECTION OF MR. ROMERO FERIS A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 124. The Commission observed that, in the four criminal cases described in the proven facts, the alleged victim filed a series of recourses that questioned diverse aspects of the competence, independence and impartiality of different judicial authorities who heard the criminal proceedings against him. In his recourses, he ascribed those violations to a political context due to the irregular appointment of the authorities who heard his cases and, specifically, with the object of criminally persecuting him. The Commission claimed that there were not sufficient elements to request that the Court declare a violation of Article 8(1). However, with specific reference to the remedies presented by the alleged victim, it argued that the decisions of the different judicial authorities who rejected or did not admit the recourses were contrary to Article 25(1), as will be explained. 125. The representative asked that the Court declare and establish that the State is responsible for violating the human rights of Mr. Romero Feris, in accordance with the conclusions of the Commission’s Merits Report. A.1. Regarding the remedies on the appointment of the First Examining Magistrate 126. The Commission noted that the alleged victim filed various recourses that disputed the competence of the First Magistrate because he had been appointed despite having finished ninth in a competition on the merits for the position. It claimed that the responses to these recourses were not effective since they did not offer a substantive answer to the petitions; did not indicate the reasons why that person was chosen despite the result of the merits competition; there was no indication of the options by which the defense counsel could challenge the situation nor did the responses clarify the alleged political context. The representative referred to what was expressed by the Commission in its Merits Report. Cf. Habeas Corpus in Emergency Situations (Arts. 27(2), 25(1) and 7(6) American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-8/87 of January 30, 1987, para. 33; Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, para. 124 and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica, para. 370. 147 25