Militar appeared, which has been recognized as an authentic military intelligence document, and which mentions Mr. García’s disappearance. According to experts who have studied the document, it reveals “that he was subjected to intensive surveillance by the Army and the Police [… and this, together with United States declassified documents reveals that his disappearances formed part] of the Government campaign to dismantle the labor union movement in Guatemala.” 215 141. The Court considers that, in the instant case, it has been proved that the State was aware of the disappearance of Edgar Fernando García as of 1984; nevertheless, it did not act in a manner consistent with its obligation to open a serious, diligent and thorough investigation immediately. From the information provided to the case file, there is no evidence that, beyond the formal responses and verifications relating to the applications for habeas corpus and requests for information submitted by the family, it had taken any investigative measures or searched for Mr. García up until 1999, when the Supreme Court called on the Public Prosecution Service to investigate the representatives’ allegations (supra para. 75). Therefore, the Court finds that, even in response to the formal filing of judicial remedies and complaints, or official rulings, the State did not open an investigation ex officio to determine the whereabouts of Edgar Fernando García, to clarify what happened and, as appropriate, to identify, prosecute, and punish those responsible. 2. Effectiveness of the remedy of habeas corpus and the special investigation procedure 142. This Court has maintained that, for the State to comply with the provisions of Article 25 of the Convention, it is not sufficient that the remedies are established in the Constitution or by law or that they are formally admissible; rather they must be effective in the terms of that instrument. 216 This effectiveness means that, in addition to the formal existence of the remedies, they must provide results or responses to the violations of rights, 217 which means that the remedy must be appropriate to address the violation, and that its implementation by the competent authority is effective. 218 In particular, the Court has considered that the application for habeas corpus is the appropriate means to guarantee liberty, to ensure respect for the life and integrity of the individual, and to prevent his or her disappearance or the uncertainty about the place of detention. 219 Moreover, those remedies that are illusory, owing to the general conditions of the country or even the specific circumstances of the case, cannot be considered effective. 220 215 Expert opinion provided by Katharine Doyle on United States declassified documents related to the disappearance of Edgar Fernando García in the domestic criminal proceedings (file of annexes to the motions and arguments brief, tome I, folio 2059) 216 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, paras. 62 and 63, and Case of Palma Mendoza et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection and merits. Judgment of September 3, 2012. Series C No. 247, para. 81. 217 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, paras. 63, 64 and 66, and Case of Palma Mendoza et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 81 218 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 64, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Merits and reparations. Judgment of June 27, 2012. Series C No. 245, para. 263. 219 Cf. 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, para. 35, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, supra, para. 158. 220 Cf. 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. 24, and Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay, supra, para. 200. 50