Chapter 5 • Human Rights and Arrest, Pre-Trial and Administrative Detention whereabouts secret and in protecting him against torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment. ...’”189 In this particular case, the writ of habeas corpus was disposed of by the President of the Supreme Court more than fourteen months after it was filed, and, contrary to articles 7(6) and 25 of the American Convention, Mr. Suárez Rosero did not, consequently, “have access to simple, prompt and effective recourse”.190 Lastly, article 7(6) of the American Convention was violated in a case where the Peruvian military refused to abide by the decision of the Public Law Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice in Lima, which had upheld a petition for habeas corpus; the military ignored the decision and went ahead with the arrest.191 ***** The notion of “lawfulness” in article 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights “has the same meaning as in paragraph 1” of that article, and the question as to “whether an ‘arrest’ or ‘detention’ can be regarded as ‘lawful’ has to be determined in the light not only of domestic law, but also of the text of the Convention, the general principles embodied therein and the aim of the restrictions permitted by Article 5 § 1”.192 Article 5(4) thus entitles an arrested or detained person “to bring proceedings for the review by a court of the procedural and substantive conditions which are essential for the ‘lawfulness’, in the sense of” article 5(1).193 This means that the review must “moreover be conducted in conformity with the aim of Article 5: to protect the individual against arbitrariness, in particular with regard to the time taken to give a decision”.194 Article 5(4) further “requires that a person detained on remand must be able to take proceedings at reasonable intervals to challenge the lawfulness of his detention” and, “in view of the assumption under the Convention that such detention is to be of strictly limited duration, ... periodic review at short intervals is called for...”.195 Consequently, article 5(4) was violated where the person was held in pre-trial detention for two years but could only have the legality of the continued detention examined once, and then without an oral hearing.196 On the other hand, it was not violated in a case where the applicants had chosen not to avail themselves of the writ of habeas corpus which existed to challenge the lawfulness of arrests and detentions under 189 I-A Court HR, Suárez Rosero Case v. Ecuador, judgment of November 12, 1997, in OAS doc. OAS/Ser.L/V/III.39, doc. 5, Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights 1997, p. 298, para. 63. 190 Ibid., paras. 64-66. 191 I-A Court HR, Cesti Hurtado Case v. Peru, judgment of September 29, 1999, in OAS doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/III.47, doc. 6, Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights 1999, p. 443, para. 133; for full facts see pp. 437-443. 192 Eur. Court HR, Case of Brogan and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 29 November 1988, Series A, No. 145, p. 34, para. 65. 193 Eur. Court HR, Case of Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports 1998-VIII, p. 3302, para. 162. 194 Eur. Court HR, Keus Case v. the Netherlands, judgment of 25 October 1990, Series A, No. 185-C, p. 66, para. 24; emphasis added. 195 Eur. Court HR, Case of Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports 1998-VIII, p. 3302, para. 162; emphasis added. 196 Ibid., p. 3303, para. 165. 202 Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers