33 104. Habeas corpus recourse, filed by Mrs.Virginia Ugarte Rivera on June 26, 1986 on behalf of Nolberto Durand Ugarte and Gabriel Pablo Ugarte Rivera identifying the director of the National Penitentiary Institute and the director of El Frontón prison as responsible, was stated on the grounds of not knowing the whereabouts of her son and brother since the subduing of the riots, arguing they could have been kidnapped or killed. This recourse was declared baseless on June 27, 1986, due to judge consideration that beneficiaries were processed and detained under orders stemming from regular proceedings, opened on March 4, 1986 by charge on terrorism, within instruction No. 83-86 before the 39th Court of Instruction of Lima. Besides it was taken into account that, according to the minute of June 18, 1986 issued by the director of El Frontón prison, such official received the order to leave the situation in the hands of the Joint Command of the Armed Forces. 105. According to what it was stated, on July 15, 1986 the First Correctional Tribunal of the Superior Court of Justice of Callao issued liberty deprivation imposed on Nolberto Durand Ugarte and Gabriel Pablo Ugarte Rivera "to make mention to a detention warrant issued within the proceeding on charges of terrorism" confirmed that the decision was appealed and considered the habeas corpus recourse on behalf of said persons baseless. On August 13, 1986 the First Hall of the Penitentiary of the Supreme Court stated "no nullity" of the application issued by the Correctional Tribunal. Finally, on October 28, 1986 the Constitutional Tribunal of Guarantees, in view of the recourse of nullification filed, declared the decision of the Supreme Court of Justice “unalterable". 106. The Court has interpreted Articles 7(6) and 27(2) of the Convention. In advisory opinion OC-8 of January 30, 1987 it has sustained that "habeas corpus and protection proceedings are those judicial guarantees indispensable for the protection of some rights whose suspension is forbidden by Article 27(2) besides they are aimed at preserving legality in a democratic society". 51 107. In advisory opinion OC-9, this Tribunal has stated that indispensable judicial guarantees for the protection of human rights not capable of suspension, according to Article 27(2) of the Convention, are those particularly referred to explicitly in Articles 7(6) and 25(1), considered within the context and according to Article 8 principles, and also inherent to the preservation of the Government of Laws, even under the exceptional legality resulting from the suspension of guarantees. 52 108. Criteria in said advisory opinions are applied to this case, due to the implementation of Supreme Order No. 012-86-IN and No. 006-86-JUS. These declared emergency state and a restricted military zone, as well as the effective control of El Frontón prison, under the Armed Forces, which produced the suspension of habeas corpus recourse violating the American Convention. 109. In relation to the above mentioned, it could be said that habeas corpus action on June 26, 1986 was ineffective, on occasion of the disappearance of Durand Ugarte and Ugarte Rivera resulting from the events on June 18, 1986. 51 Habeas corpus under suspension of guarantees, supra note 45, para. 42. 52 Judicial guarantees in states of emergency, supra note 46, para. 38.