66 illusory and ineffective, because there was an unjustified delay in the decision on it. The second remedy was filed on October 2, 1997, in view of the fact that the charges against that Mr. Tibi had already been provisionally dismissed, and he should be released immediately, pursuant to Article 246 of the Criminal Procedures Code. The ruling on this remedy was negative, disregarding the provisions of the Ecuadorian Constitution and laws; and c) Ineffectiveness of these remedies was a combined violation of Articles 7(6) and 25(1) of the Convention. Pleadings of the State 125. The State argued that: a) Mr. Tibi had unlimited access to each and every remedy offered by Ecuadorian domestic legislation to protect the right to personal liberty and other basic rights. Neither he nor the population as a whole were denied the right to habeas corpus, amparo, and other remedies, and the accused could have resorted to them during the period of detention and, in general, throughout the trial; and b) If the detention was unlawful, the alleged victim could have resorted to domestic authorities and filed such legal actions as he deemed appropriate regarding the alleged violations of his right to humane treatment, which he says he suffered during his detention; said remedies were rejected for strictly juridical reasons, which is not a breach of the Convention. Considerations of the Court 126. Article 7(6) of the American Convention establishes that: [a]nyone who is deprived of his liberty shall be entitled to recourse to a competent court, in order that the court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his arrest or detention and order his release if the arrest or detention is unlawful. In States Parties whose laws provide that anyone who believes himself to be threatened with deprivation of his liberty is entitled to recourse to a competent court in order that it may decide on the lawfulness of such threat, this remedy may not be restricted or abolished. The interested party or another person in his behalf is entitled to seek these remedies. 127. Article 25 of that same Convention establishes that: 1. Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 2. The States Parties undertake: a. to ensure that any person claiming such remedy shall have his rights determined by the competent authority provided for by the legal system of the state; b. to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy; and c. to ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.