80 285 there has been a violation of human rights and in providing redress.” When the protection of the right to personal liberty is sought through a judicial remedy, “[t]he analysis by the competent authority [...] can not be reduced to a mere formality, instead it must examine the reasons invoked by the claimant and make express statements regarding the same, according to the parameters established by the American 286 Convention.” Those parameters are, naturally, those set by Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, particularly, the guarantee of an impartial tribunal, and the right to be 287 heard as basic precepts of due legal process. 198. In this regard, the Tokyo Rules stipulate that the accused “shall have the right to appeal to a judicial or other competent independent authority in cases where pre-trial detention is employed” (Rule 6.3). Accordingly, that judicial oversight does not refer exclusively to the circumstances of the detention, but also to its 288 continuation. 199. The European Court has ruled that the right of arrested or detained persons to a review of the legality of their arrest requires the competent court to examine not only compliance with the procedural requirements set forth in domestic law, but also the reasonableness of the suspicion on which the arrest is grounded and 289 the legitimacy of the purpose pursued. This procedure should offer the possibility of confrontation of positions (adversarial) and always ensure equality of arms between the parties, the prosecutor and the detained person. To ensure this equality of arms, it is essential that defense attorneys be given access to those documents in the investigation 290 that are necessary to effectively challenge the lawfulness of their clients’ detention. 200. In addition, as already noted, pretrial detention may never, in any circumstance, be justified by the use of judicial remedies provided for in law. Those resources are provided to ensure the parties due process and, in this regard, have been designed for maximum use. 285 I/A Court H.R., Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27.2, 25, and 8 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987, Series A No. 9, para. 24. 286 141, para. 96. I/A Court H.R., Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 287 IACHR, Report No. 86/09, Case 12.553, Merits, Jorge, José, and Dante Peirano Basso, Uruguay, August 6, 2009, para. 119. 288 IACHR, Report No. 86/09, Case 12.553, Merits, Jorge, José, and Dante Peirano Basso, Uruguay, August 6, 2009, paras. 118 and 121. 289 ECHR, Case of Brogan and Others v. The United Kingdom (Applications No. 11209/84, 11234/84, and 11386/85), Judgment of November 29, 1988 (Grand Chamber), para. 65. 290 ECHR, Case of Piruzyan v. Armenia (Application No. 33376/07), Judgment of June 26, 2012 (Third Section of the Court), para. 116; ECHR, Case of Nikolova v. Bulgaria (Application No. 31195/96), Judgment of March 25, 1999, para. 58.