19 81. This Court considers it useful to stress that the judgment of the Constitutional Guarantees Court stood upon a voting where four justices were in favor of admitting the appeal filed, and two were in favor of denying the annulment. In virtue of this, while it is true that the minimum number of five votes in favor was not obtained, the singular vote of the four justices represents the majority opinion of the Court. The pertinent section of the opinion was affirmed when it said: "That, while it is true that such a situation does not constitute a legal definition for kidnapping, it leads to the conclusion that the judge should have exhausted the investigation concerning the lives and whereabouts of the persons in whose favor the [habeas corpus] action is being brought." Thus, in the opinion of said justices, the appeal against the judgment of the Supreme Court was justiciable. Had the appeal been admitted, the intervention of military justice would not have impaired the habeas corpus proceeding. 82. The Court has interpreted articles 7(6) and 27(2) of the Convention in advisory opinions OC-8 and OC-9 of January 30 and October 6, 1987 respectively. In the former opinion, the Court maintained that writs of habeas corpus and of "amparo" are among those judicial remedies that are essential for the protection of various rights whose derogation is prohibited by Article 27(2) and that they serve, moreover, to preserve legality in a democratic society. This Court also deemed that [i]n order for habeas corpus to achieve its purpose, which is to obtain a judicial determination of the lawfulness of a detention, it is necessary that the detained person be brought before a competent judge or tribunal with jurisdiction over him. Here habeas corpus performs a vital role in ensuring that a person's life and physical integrity are respected, in preventing his disappearance or the keeping of his whereabouts secret and in protecting him against torture or other cruel, inhumane, or degrading punishment or treatment. (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, paras. 42 and 35.) 83. In Advisory Opinion OC-9, this Court added that the judicial guarantees essential for the protection of the human rights not subject to derogation, according to Article 27(2) of the Convention, are those to which the Convention expressly refers in Articles 7(6) and 25(1), considered within the framework and the principles of Article 8, and also those necessary to the preservation of the Rule of Law, even during the state of exception that results from the suspension of guarantees. (Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency, (Arts. 27(2), 25 and 8 American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987. Series A No. 9, para. 38.) 84. These interpretive criteria are applicable to this case in that the control and jurisdiction of the armed forces over the San Juan Bautista Prison translated into an implicit suspension of the habeas corpus action, by virtue of the application of the Supreme Decrees that imposed the state of emergency and the Restricted Military Zone status. 85. In accordance with Article 1(1) of the Convention, "[t]he States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms." Thus, as a consequence, this provision is a general one, and its violation is always related to the violation of a provision that establishes a specific human right. As the Court already expressed in a previous case, Article 1 specifies the obligation assumed by the States Parties in relation to each of the rights protected. Each claim alleging that one of those rights has been infringed necessarily implies that Article 1(1) of the Convention has also been violated. (Velásquez Rodríguez Case, supra 63, para. 162; Godínez Cruz Case, supra 63, para. 171.) 86. This Court considers that in this case the Government has not violated Article 5 of the Convention. While the deprivation of a person's life could also be understood as an injury to his or