104 219. Both the Inter-American Court and the European Court of Human Rights have stressed the material role played by the prompt judicial supervision of detentions. A person deprived of his liberty without judicial supervision must be released or immediately brought before a judge.217 220. The second Principle of the United Nations’ Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment provides that “[a]rrest, detention or imprisonment shall only be carried out strictly in accordance with the provisions of the law and by competent officials or persons authorized for that purpose.”218 221. The Court believes that certain clarifications on this topic are in order. The language of the guarantee laid down in Article 7(5) of the Convention is clear as to the fact that any person arrested is to be brought promptly before a judge or other competent judicial authority pursuant to the principles of judicial supervision and procedural immediacy. This is essential for the protection of the right to personal liberty, and also to protect other rights such as the rights to life and humane treatment. The mere fact that a court is aware of a person’s detention does not satisfy this guarantee, as the detainee must personally appear before and provide a statement to the judge or competent authority.219 222. In previous cases, the Court established that a “judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power” must satisfy the requirements laid down in the first paragraph of Article 8 of the Convention,220 also holding that civilians must be tried by the regular courts. It should be noted that, in this Judgment, the Court has stated that the judges or tribunals that heard the two proceedings against Mr. Palamara-Iribarne did not satisfy the competence, impartiality and independence requirements that are necessary in order for the right to a fair trial to be safeguarded in the context of a military proceeding (supra para. 161). Furthermore, the Court stated that, in spite of being a civilian, Mr. Palamara-Iribarne was brought before military authorities. 223. In this regard, it is the Court’s view that the fact that, upon his detention, Mr. Palamara-Iribarne was set to appear before the Naval Prosecutor, who was vested with the exercise of judicial functions under the domestic laws, did not guarantee the right to have the legality of his detention reviewed by a judicial authority. Considering that it was the Naval Prosecutor who ordered that Mr. Palamara-Iribarne and Case of the Gómez-Paquiyauri brothers, supra note 211, para. 96. 217 Cf. Case of Acosta-Calderón, supra note 189, para. 76; Case of Tibi, supra note 206, para. 115; and Case of the Gómez-Paquiyauri brothers, supra note 211, para. 95. 218 U.N., Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, Adopted by General Assembly resolution 43/173 of December 9, 1988, Principle 2. 219 Cf. Case of Acosta-Calderón, supra note 189, para. 77; and Case of Tibi, supra note 206, para. 118. 220 Cf. Case of Tibi, supra note 206, para. 119; and Case of Cantoral-Benavides, supra nota 201, paras. 74 and 75.