29 66. In this respect, the Court considers it necessary to invoke another measures designed to avoid arbitrariness or unlawfulness, namely: prompt judicial control, taking into account that, under the rule of law, a judge must guarantee the rights of the person detained, authorize the adoption of precautionary or coercive measures, when these are strictly necessary and, in general, ensure treatment consequent with the presumption of innocence that protects the accused while his responsibility has not been established. “[A]nyone deprived of his freedom without any form of judicial control must be either released or brought promptly before a judge, because the essential content [of] Article 7 of the American Convention is the protection of the liberty of the individual from interference by the State.”66 67. Article 6 of the Constitution of Guatemala in force since January 14, 1986, establishes that a person may only be deprived of his freedom “owing to an order issued in accordance with the law by a competent judicial authority” or should he be caught in flagrante delicto when committing an offense or a misdemeanor, and he must be brought “before the competent judicial authority within no more than six hours.” In this case, Maritza Urrutia was not caught in flagrante delicto but was detained when she was walking down the street, having left her son at school, and the causes and conditions established in the said article had not been met; moreover, she was not brought promptly before a judge. In this respect, the CEH Report stated that Maritza Urrutia was subjected to “arbitrary detention, contrary to Guatemalan legislation, carried out against the victim by State agents.”67 This Court has indicated that situations, such as the one described endanger the observance of due process of law,68 because the person detained is refused the right to the protection of the law and there is no judicial control. 68. In view of the above, the unlawful detention of Maritza Urrutia constitutes a violation of Article 7(2) of the American Convention. 69. With regard to Article 7(3) of the Convention, this Court considers that the detention of Maritza Urrutia falls within the State agents’ practice of abducting, interrogating, torturing and threatening the lives of the victims or their next of kin, without any judicial control in order to demoralize the rebel groups (supra paras. 58(2) and 58(3)). 70. Owing to the above, this Court considers that the detention of Maritza Urrutia was arbitrary and constitutes a violation of Article 7(3) of the Convention. 71. Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of Article 7 of the American Convention establish obligations of a positive nature that impose specific requirements on both State agents and third parties who act with the tolerance and agreement of the former and who are responsible for carrying out detentions.69 66 Bulacio case, supra note 14, para. 129; Juan Humberto Sánchez case, supra note 14, para. 84; and Castillo Petruzzi et al. case. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 108. 67 Cf. Report of the Commission for Historical Clarification, Guatemala, memoria del silencio, Tome VI, illustrative case No. 33, “Privación arbitraria de libertad y tortura de Maritza Urrutia”, pp. 245 to 250 (file of attachments to the application, attachment 2, folios 32 to 37). 68 69 Cf. Bulacio case, supra note 14, para. 127. Cf. Juan Humberto Sánchez case, supra note 14, para. 81.