30 72. This Court has established that Article 7(4) of the Convention includes a mechanism to avoid unlawful or arbitrary conduct from the moment of the deprivation of freedom and to guarantee the defense of the person detained, so that the latter and those who represent him or have legal custody of him have the right to be informed of the reasons for his detention when this occurs and of the rights of detainees.70 Article 7 of the Guatemalan Constitution establishes that “any person detained must be notified immediately, orally and in writing, of the reasons for his detention, the authority who ordered it, and the place where he will be detained.” In this case, it has been proved that, at the time of her detention, neither Maritza Urrutia nor her family were informed of the criminal conduct attributed to her, of the reasons for the detention and of her rights as a detainee, all of which constitute a violation of Article 7(4) of the Convention to the detriment of Maritza Urrutia. 73. Article 7(5) of the Convention establishes that any person detained shall be brought promptly before a judge, as the appropriate measure of control to avoid arbitrary or unlawful detention. Both the Inter-American Court and the European Court of Human Rights71 have accorded special importance to the prompt judicial supervision of detentions in order to prevent arbitrary and unlawful acts. A person deprived of his freedom without type of judicial supervision must be released or immediately brought before a judge. The European Court of Human Rights has stated that although the word “immediately” should be interpreted according to the special characteristics of each case, no situation, however serious, grants the authorities the power to unduly prolong the period of detention, because this would violate Article 5(3) of the European Convention.72 That Court emphasized “that the detention of a person, which is not acknowledged by the State, constitutes a complete negation of these guarantees and one of the most serious forms of violation of Article 5 of the European Convention.73 74. Maritza Urrutia was detained by State agents without a judicial order and was not brought before a competent authority; she did not have the possibility of filing a simple and effective remedy against this act, by herself, and the writs of habeas corpus filed in her favor were ineffective. It has been shown that, when detaining Maritza Urrutia, the State agents did not have the intention of bringing her before the judge, but rather they hid her detention and avoided all judicial control, taking her to a clandestine detention center. 70 Cf. Bulacio case, supra note 14, para. 128; and Juan Humberto Sánchez case, supra note 14, para. 82. 71 Cf. Juan Humberto Sánchez case, supra note 14, para. 84; Bámaca Velásquez case, supra note 64, para. 140; the “Street Children” case (Villagrán Morales et al.), supra note 12, para. 135; Eur. Court HR, Aksoy v. Turkey, judgment of 18 December 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI, para. 76; and Eur. Court H.R., Brogan and Others, judgment of 29 November 1988, Series A No. 145-B, para. 58. 72 Cf. Juan Humberto Sánchez case, supra note 14, para. 84; Bámaca Velásquez case, supra note 64, para. 140; Castillo Petruzzi et al. case, supra note 66, para. 108; Eur. Court H.R., Brogan and Others, judgment of 29 November 1988, Series A No. 145-B, para. 58-59, 61-62; and Eur. Court H.R., Jong, Baljet and van den Brink, judgment of 22 May 1985, para 52. 73 Cf. Juan Humberto Sánchez case, supra note 14, para. 84; Bámaca Velásquez case, supra note 64, para. 140; the “Street Children” case (Villagrán Morales et al.), supra note 12, para. 135; Eur. Court HR, Kurt v. Turkey, judgment of 25 May 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 III, para. 124, Eur. Court HR, Nuray Sen v. Turkey, judgment of 17 June 2003, para. 123; and Eur. Court HR, Orhan v Turkey, judgment of 18 June 2002, para. 367.