41 punishment. This system could give rise to abuse, since it did not protect the right of defense in the full sense of the expression; other rights were also in jeopardy. 179. Consequently, by failing to notify Mr. Galindo Cárdenas of the reasons for his detention and by failing to afford him the opportunity to exercise his right of defend himself against the crime of which the Prosecutor’s Office accused him, the Commission concludes that in the instant case, the State of Peru violated Article 7(4) of the Convention, read in conjunction with articles 8(2)(b) and (c) and 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mr. Galindo. Article 7(5) of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Article 2 thereof 180. Both the Inter-American Court and the European Court have underscored how important prompt judicial control of detentions is. A person deprived of his liberty without judicial control must be either released or 138 brought immediately before a judge. 181. As for the guarantee protected in Article 7(5) of the Convention and its relationship to security of person, the IACHR has held that the right to personal liberty also includes the guarantee of prompt and effective judicial oversight of detentions, in order to protect the well-being of detainees at a time when they are wholly 139 within the control of the state and therefore particularly vulnerable to abuses of authority. 182. For its part, the Inter-American Court has written that the first part of Article 7(5) of the Convention states that any person detained shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power. Here the Court has held that prompt judicial oversight is intended to prevent abuse or violations of the law in detentions, since in the rule of law, it is up to the judge to ensure the rights of the detainee, authorize the adoption of precautionary or coercive measures when strictly necessary, and to endeavor, in general to ensure that the accused is treated in a manner commensurate with the principle of presumption of 140 innocence. 183. As for the right to be brought promptly before a judicial authority, the IACHR observes that Article 12(c) of Decree Law 25475, provided that the judge had to be informed when a person was ordered detained in DINCOTE. The Commission must point out that observance of the guarantee provided for in Article 7(5) of the Convention is not satisfied simply by informing the judicial authority of the arrest. This provision means that the person detained must be brought physically before the judicial authority. Consequently, the Commission observes that the fact that the Public Prosecutor’s Office was present when Mr. Galindo’s statement was taken did not protect his right to be brought before an official authorized by law to exercise judicial power, since the Prosecutor did not have the authority to order the release of the person under investigation. 184. The Court has also addressed Article 12(c) of Law 25475 on terrorism, and has repeatedly held that provisions of this kind contradict the Convention, which states “Any person detained shall be brought 141 promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power.” In its Second Report on 138 I/A Court H.R., Case of Tibi. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, paragraph 115, I/A Court H.R., Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, paragraph 95, and I/A Court H.R., Case of Maritza Urrutia. Judgment of November 27, 2003. Series C No. 103, paragraph 73. See also, Eur. Court H.R., Brogan and Others, judgment of 29 November 1988, Series A no. 145-B, paragraphs 58-59; Kurt v Turkey, No. 24276/94, paragraphs 122, 123 and 124, ECHR 1998-III. 139 IACHR, Report on Terrorism and Human Rights, OEA/SER.L/V/II.116, Doc. 5 rev. 1, corr., October 22, 2002. Paragraph 121. Citing: IACHR. Case 11.205, Report No. 2/97, Jorge Luis Bronstein et al. (Argentina), Annual Report of the IACHR 1997, paragraph 11. See, analogously, Case 12.069, Report No. 50/01, Damion Thomas (Jamaica), Annual Report of the IACHR 2000, paragraphs 37, 38. 140 I/A Court H.R., Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220. Paragraph 93; Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, paragraph 129; and Case of Bayarri v. Argentina. .Preliminary Objection,, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 30, 2008. Series C No. 187, paragraph 63. 141 I/A Court H.R.. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, paragraph 73; I/A Court H.R.. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, paragraph 110.