67 128. The Court has deemed 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) [of the Convention] and that serve, moreover, to preserve legality in a democratic society.”140 129. These guarantees, which seek to avoid arbitrariness and unlawfulness of detentions made by the State, are also reinforced by the latter’s role as guarantor of the rights of the detainees, in light of which, as the Court has pointed out, the State “does in fact have the responsibility to guarantee the rights of individuals under its custody as well as that of supplying information and evidence pertaining to what has happened to the detainee.”141. 130. This Court has established that protection of the individual against arbitrary exercise of public authority is a fundamental objective of international human rights protection142 In this regard, non-existence of effective domestic remedies places the individual in a state of defenselessness. Article 25(1) of the Convention sets forth, in broad terms, the obligation of the States to offer all persons under their jurisdiction an effective judicial remedy against acts that violate their basic rights.143 131. From this standpoint, the Court has pointed out that for the State to comply with the provisions of the aforementioned Article 25(1) of the Convention, it is not enough for the resources to exist formally, but rather they must be effective,144 in other words, the individual must have an effective possibility of filing a simple and prompt remedy that enables attainment, if appropriate, of the judicial protection requested. This Court has repeatedly stated that the existence of these guarantees “is one of the basic mainstays, not only of the American Convention, but also of the rule of law in a democratic society in the sense set forth in the Convention.”145 140 Habeas corpus in Emergency Situations. Series A. Advisory Opinion OC-8/87 of January 30, 1987, para. 42; and see Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 8, para. 97; Case of DurandUgarte. August 16, 2000 Judgment. Series C No. 68, para. 106; and 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. 33. 141 See Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 8, para. 98; and Case of Bulacio, supra note 129, para. 138. 142 See Case of the “Five Pensioners”, supra note 25, para. 126; and Case of the Constitutional Court. January 31, 2001 Judgment. Series C No. 71, para. 89. 143 See Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 8, para. 116; Case of Cantos. November 28, 2002 Judgment. Series C No. 97, para. 52; and Case of the Constitutional Court, supra note 142, para. 89. 144 See Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 8, para. 117; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez, supra note 3, para. 121; and Case of Cantos, supra note 143, para. 52. 145 See Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 8, para. 117; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez, supra note 3, para. 121; Case of Cantos, supra note 143, para. 52; Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community. August 31, 2001 Judgment, para. 111; Case of Bámaca Velásquez, supra note 8, para. 191; Case of Cantoral Benavides, supra note 139, para. 163; Case of Durand-Ugarte, supra note 140, para. 101; Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.). November 19, 1999 Judgment. Series C No. 63, para. 234; Case of Cesti Hurtado. September 29, 1999 Judgment, para. 121; Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. May 30, 1999 Judgment. Series C No. 52, para. 184; Case of the “Panel Blanca” (Paniagua Morales et al.). March 8, 1998 Judgment. Series C No. 37, para. 164; Blake Case, January 24, 1998 Judgment. Series C No. 36, para. 102; Case of Suárez Rosero. November 12, 1997 Judgment. Series C No. 35, para. 65; and Case of Castillo Páez. November 3, 1997 Judgment. Series C No. 34, para. 82.