216. However, in this case there is dispute regarding the alleged facts of the detention, since the representatives and the State presented different versions. According to Mr. Valenzuela, he was first detained on May 27, 1998, by PNC officials dressed in civilian clothes, around 1:45 p.m., who took him to the Olintepeque Quetzaltenango Summit, where he was subjected to violence to obtain information regarding the crime of which the prosecutor SJR had been a victim. Subsequently, he was taken back to his home to carry out a search, during which a state agent entered the home with a sack containing the weapons and claimed he was in possession of the weapons that they "planted." The other version is that of the State, which does not refer to the detention described by Mr. Valenzuela, but rather part of the search carried out and the seizure of large caliber weapons found in his home as the reason for his detention. (supra paras. 73 and 74).180 217. Regarding the aforementioned dispute, the body of evidence submitted to this Court does not have sufficient elements to conclude that Mr. Valenzuela had indeed been detained, before the search, on May 27, 1998, and therefore it will not analyze the allegations of the representatives regarding this detention. 218. Having resolved the above, it is up to the Court to analyze whether, based on the events that occurred after the arrest following the search, Mr. Valenzuela was promptly brought before a judge or other competent official to guarantee his rights, and if applicable, said omission can be attributed to the State in violation of the American Convention. 181 219. It has been shown that Tirso Román Valenzuela Ávila, after the search carried out at his home, between 4:55 p.m. and 5:50 p.m., on May 27, 1998 (supra footnote 40), as stated in the official letter No. 1709-98 (supra para. 73), was detained by state agents to be transferred to the Quetzaltenango Men's Preventive Detention Center. Although there is no record of his admission to said center, it is not a disputed fact that he was admitted in the early morning hours of May 28, 1998. By this time, several hours had already elapsed after Mr. Valenzuela's detention had been carried out. at the end of the search on May 27, 1998. According to the State, on May 28, 1998, the “judicial statement” by Mr. Valenzuela was received by a judge,182 and on May 29, 1998, the Second Criminal Court of First Instance of Quetzaltenango, issued a preventive detention order. The representatives argued that for the first time, on the last date indicated, a judge heard Mr. Valenzuela Ávila. 220. Based on the foregoing, it is evident that Mr. Valenzuela Ávila's constitutional right established in Article 6 of the Political Constitution to be placed at the disposal of the competent judicial authority within a period not exceeding six hours was not respected (supra para. 213), since he was not brought before a competent judge to verify the legality of his detention. In other words, a judicial control was not carried out without delay, taking into account that the constitutionally determined period of 6 hours, for May 28 or 29, in which Mr. Valenzuela would have been brought before a competent authority, had already been exceeded. Therefore, this Court considers that the State failed to comply with its duty to bring Mr. Valenzuela before a judge or official authorized by law, in violation of the right to personal On repeated occasions, the Court requested the State to submit evidence to decide on “documents related to the arrest warrant [of the victim] and all the proceedings that were issued” in this regard were not presented (supra citation footnote 22). 181 In order for a violation of the American Convention to be established, the acts or omissions that caused said violation must be attributable to the respondent State. These acts or omissions can be of any power or organ of the State, regardless of its place in the hierarchy. Cf. Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, para. 79, and Case of Arrom Suhurt et al. v. Paraguay, supra, para. 94. 182 It should be noted that in said proceedings, Mr. Valenzuela refrained from testifying. Cf. Report of the State of Guatemala to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, supra. 180 53