6. The representative reported that the habeas corpus action was submitted on November 16, 2009, before the Fortieth Court of the First Supervisory Instance of the Metropolitan Caracas Criminal Circuit, which referred the petition to a First Supervisory Instance Tribunal of Guárico state on November 29, 2009. Later, they indicated that they recognized the State’s efforts as far as the execution of a visual inspection, but highlighted that the procedures requested had not been carried out “continuously and systematically.” Separately, they also reported that on February 25, 2010, a visual inspection of the General Penitentiary of Venezuela was carried out that included the participation of family members of the beneficiary. However, the inspection “could not be completed effectively because the necessary security conditions and tools for carrying out the activity were not available.” Finally, the representatives indicated with regard to the alleged evasion mentioned by the State that Mr. Guerrero Larez “was ‘disappeared’ while being held in the General Penitentiary of Venezuela, for which reason the State had a special duty to protect this individual.” Thus they were waiting for up-to-date information on the investigations carried out, specifically with regard to the visual and forensic inspections. 7. For its part, the Commission expressed that “the situation of the beneficiary remains undetermined. Additionally, domestic mechanisms were activated only when the father of Mr. Guerrero Larez filed a complaint,” indicating a lack of oversight in the penitentiary on the part of the respective authorities who had not noticed that he had disappeared. It also pointed out that there is no information on whether the procedures ordered by the Third Prosecutor of the Office of the Public Prosecutor of the Guárico State Circuit were carried out, how they were carried out, or what kind of results were obtained. The Commission expressed its concern over the fact that the State “is not deploying the resources at its disposal to establish the whereabouts of the beneficiary and that the actions taken do not in any way address the urgency or immediacy that the gravity of this case merits,” given that the last reported procedure dates to January 2010. Finally, the Commission highlighted that the opening of a criminal investigation could be an important measure, but that it does not exhaust all the efforts that the State must deploy in the search for an individual who disappeared while under State custody. It also noted that the habeas corpus action has not contributed to speeding up the procedures that were ordered in the context of the investigation. Additionally, it noted with concern the amount of time that had passed without any inspection of the interior of the prison being carried out due to reasons of safety of the personnel in charge of the procedure. For this reason, it considered that the State should make the necessary efforts to overcome “the obstacles present as of this moment and move forward with the investigation into the whereabouts of the beneficiary.” 8. In this regard, it is important to recall that whenever there is a good reason to suspect that an individual has been subjected to a disappearance, it is crucial that prompt and immediate action be taken by prosecutorial and judicial authorities to order timely and necessary measures aimed at determining the whereabouts of the victim or the place where the victim might be found deprived of liberty.4 Separately, in situations of individuals deprived of liberty - like this one - habeas corpus represents, within the range of indispensable judicial guarantees, the ideal measure for determining the status and the whereabouts of Mr. Guerrero Larez, as well as for overseeing respect for his life and protecting his personal integrity. 4 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 134; Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al., supra footnote 2, Considering 20, and Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al. Provisional Measures regarding Mexico. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 26, 2010, Considering 13. 4