43 188. The Commission therefore concludes that inasmuch as Mr. Galindo was not brought before a competent judicial authority, the State of Peru violated Article 7(5) of the American Convention, read in conjunction with articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, to the detriment of Luis Antonio Galindo Cárdenas. B. Violation of articles 7(6) and 25(1) of the Convention 189. Under Article 25 of the Convention, 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 190. Article 7(6) of the American Convention provides that: 6. Anyone 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. 191. Article 25(1) of the American Convention is a general provision that embodies the procedural institution known as "amparo," which is a simple and prompt remedy designed for the protection of all the rights recognized by the constitutions and laws of the States Parties and by the Convention. Since "amparo" can be applied to all rights, it is clear that it can also be applied to those that are expressly mentioned in Article 27(2) as 147 rights that are not subject to derogation even in emergency situations. 192. The Commission is reminded that the case law of the Court has held that Article 25(1) of the Convention establishes, in broad terms, the States’ obligation to provide to all persons subject to their jurisdiction 148 an effective judicial remedy against acts that violate their fundamental rights. Accordingly, the Court has held that for a Court to be in compliance with Article 25(1) of the Convention, it is not enough for the remedies to exist 149 formally; instead, they must be effective; in other words, they must offer the person the real possibility of filing a simple and prompt recourse to secure, where necessary, the required judicial protection. Time and time again the Court has held that “the existence of these guarantees is one of the basic mainstays, not only of the American 150 Convention, but also of the rule of law in a democratic society in the sense set forth in the Convention.” 193. On the subject of habeas corpus, the Court has written that this judicial remedy directly protects personal freedom or physical integrity against arbitrary detentions; it does this by means of a judicial decree ordering the appropriate authorities to bring the detained person before a judge so that the lawfulness of the 151 detention may be determined and, if appropriate, the detainee ordered released. 147 I/A Court H.R., Habeas corpus in emergency situations (Arts. 27(2), 25(1) and 7(6) American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-8/87 of January 30, 1987. Series A No. 8, paragraph 32. 148 I/A Court H.R., Case of Maritza Urrutia. Judgment of November 27, 2003. Series C No. 103, paragraph 116; I/A Court H.R., Case of Cantos. Judgment of November 28, 2002. Series C No. 97, paragraph 52, and I/A Court H.R., Case of Tibi. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, paragraph 130. 149 I/A Court H.R., Case of Maritza Urrutia. Judgment of November 27, 2003. Series C No. 103, paragraph 117; I/A Court H.R., Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, paragraph 121, and I/A Court H.R., Case of Tibi. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, paragraph 131. 150 151 I/A Court H.R., Case of Tibi. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, paragraph 131. I/A Court H.R., Habeas corpus in emergency situations (Arts. 27(2), 25(1) and 7(6) American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-8/87 of January 30, 1987. Series A No. 8, paragraph 33.