notes that the petitioners did not allege the violation of this obligation. However, the IACHR will consider the presumed violation of Article 2 of the American Convention, in light of the principle of iura novit curiae, which establishes the “duty to apply the relevant legal provisions in a case, even when the parties have not expressly invoked them.” 65 In this regard, the IACHR finds that the writ of amparo, as a means of protection in the case of forced disappearance, may, prima facie, prove to be ineffective, in consideration of Articles 17 and 117 of the Amparo Law. 66 In forced disappearance cases, the function of the recourse of exhibition of the person is to learn the whereabouts of the allegedly disappeared person. On this point, the InterAmerican Court has maintained as follows: [I]f the recourse of exhibition of the person requires […] identification of the place of detention and the pertinent authority, it would not be appropriate for finding a person clandestinely detained by state agents, since, in those cases, there is only referential evidence of detention and the whereabouts of the 67 victim are unknown. 59. With regard to the violation of the right to protection of the family alleged by the petitioners, the IACHR recognizes that the right to family life includes both positive and negative action by the State, and that any intervention must be justified and must strike a balance between the general interest of a community and the interest of the persons concerned. 68 In this case, there is neither factual or legal evidence that would allow the IACHR to determine that the State had undertaken action (both positive and negative) for the purpose of violating the right to protection of the family, to the detriment of Antonio González Méndez and his family. 60. By virtue of the functions established in Article 41 of the American Convention and Article 37 of the IACHR’s Rules of Procedure, the Commission declares the petition under consideration admissible for the alleged violations of the rights contained in Articles 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 25 and the obligation contained in Article 2 of the American Convention, considered in relation to Article 1(1) of that international instrument, and declares the petition inadmissible with respect to the right established in Article 17 of the American Convention. Without prejudging the merits of the case, the Commission finds that the requirements established in Articles 47(b) and 47(c) of the American Convention have been met. V. CONCLUSION 65 Inter-American Court, Case of Hilaire, Constantine y Benjamin, et al. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, para. 107. 66 Article 17 of the Amparo Law establishes: “In the case of In the case of acts that entail the danger of deprivation of life, attacks on personal freedom outside judicial proceedings, deportation, or exile, or any of the acts prohibited by Article 22 of the Federal Constitution, and the injured party is unable to file a writ of amparo, any other person may do so on his behalf, even if the person is a minor. In that case, the judge shall order any measures needed to ensure the appearance of the injured party and, in whatever circumstances, shall rule that the amparo writ must be reiterated within a period of three days; if the interested party reiterates it, the writ will be processed; if it is not reiterated, the writ will be considered as never having been filed, and the measures ordered shall be considered null and void. For its part, Article 117 states: “In the case of In the case of acts that entail the danger of deprivation of life, attacks on personal freedom outside judicial proceedings, deportation, or exile, or any of the acts prohibited by Article 22 of the Federal Constitution, , the petition shall be admitted on condition that it contains the following information: the act that is the subject of the complaint; the authority that ordered it, if possible the initiating party; the place where the injured party is located; and the authority or agent that is executing or attempting to execute the act. In such cases the request may be made by appearing before a judge, with the proceeding recorded for that purpose. 67 I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 65. 68 IACHR, Petition in the case of Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano Cruz (Case 12132), El Salvador, June 14, 2003. On this point, refer to the European Court of Human Rights, X and Y vs. the Netherlands, judgment of March 26, 1985, para. 23; López Ostra v. Spain. Judgment of December 9, 1994, para. 51, in fine; McGinley and Egan v. United Kingdom. Judgment of June 9, 1998, para. 98; Guerra et al. v. Italy. Judgment of February 19, 1998, para. 58. 14