obstacles and problems arising from this inequality.116 The right to request consular assistance seeks to protect the interaction of the person deprived of liberty with his country’s consular authorities so that they can assist him, thus seeking to reduce the unequal conditions that being a foreigner may generate. 101. The counterpart to this right is the obligation of the State authorities to notify the foreigner who has been detained of his right to consular assistance. This Court’s case law has indicated that, when a foreigner has been arrested, at the moment of being deprived of his liberty and before he provides his first statement to the authorities, he must be notified of his right to establish contact with a consular officer.117 In the Advisory Opinion on The Right to Information on Consular Assistance Within the Framework of the Guarantees of the Due Process of Law,118 the Court established unequivocally that the right of a foreign national who is detained to information on consular assistance established in Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations119 is an individual right and a basic guarantee protected under the interAmerican system.120 102. The Court has also indicated that the person deprived of liberty should be notified of his right to request consular assistance at the time of arrest and before he provides his first statement because, if he requests consular assistance, the consular officer can assist the detainee in different defense actions, such as providing or retaining a lawyer, obtaining evidence in the country of origin, verifying the conditions under which legal assistance is provided, and monitoring the situation of the accused while he is in prison.121 The Court has also indicated that the individual right to request consular assistance from the country of origin should be recognized and considered to be one of the basic guarantees to provide foreign nationals with the opportunity to prepare their defense adequately and to have a fair trial,122 because “disregard for, or the obstruction of, the right [of the person detained] to this information infringes judicial guarantees”123 and may result in a violation of Article 8(2) of the American Convention. 103. The Court has also indicated that, from the perspective of the rights of the person detained, the State Party must guarantee three essential elements: (i) the right to be notified of his rights under the Vienna Convention; (ii) the right of effective access to communication with a consular officer, and (iii) the right to the assistance itself.124 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, supra, para. 119; Juridical Condition and Rights of Undocumented Migrants, Advisory Opinion OC-18/03, September 17, 2003. Series A No. 18, para. 121, and Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, supra, para. 152. 116 117 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, supra, para. 106, Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez, supra, para. 164, and Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, supra, para. 154. 118 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, supra, para. 124, and Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, supra, para. 151. 119 Article 36.1.b) of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. 120 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, supra, para. 124, and Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, supra, para. 151. 121 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, supra, para. 86; Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez, supra, para. 164, and Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, supra, para. 154. 122 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, supra, para. 122; Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez, supra, para. 164, and Case of Bueno Alves v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 164, para. 116. Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, supra, para. 129; Case of Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, paras. 125 and 126, and Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, paras. 195 and 196. 123 124 Cf. Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, supra, para. 153. 29