57 Contreras siblings ordered the Prosecutor General’s Office to investigate the facts, “the inquiry remains closed” or “inactive.” The representatives indicated that all the applications for habeas corpus filed by the victims’ next of kin “were ineffective,” in violation of Article 25(1) of the Convention. The State acknowledged its responsibility for violations of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention in general terms. 157. Nevertheless, since Article 7(6) of the Convention248 has its own juridical content consisting in the direct protection of personal or physical liberty by means of the judicial mandate addressed at the corresponding authorities ordering them to bring detainees before a judge so that the latter may examine the legality of the detention and, if appropriate, order the release of the individual in question,249 and given that the principle of effectiveness (effet utile) crosscuts the protection due to all the rights recognized in the Convention, as it has on other occasions,250 the Court finds it unnecessary to analyze this provision in relation to Article 25 of the Convention. 158. The Court has considered that the remedy of habeas corpus, or the presentation of the person, is the ideal measure to guarantee liberty, to monitor respect for life and personal integrity, and to prevent an individual’s disappearance or uncertainty about his place of detention.251 In this regard, this Court’s case law has already indicated that these remedies should not only exist formally in law, but must be effective.252 159. In this case, it has been verified that three applications for habeas corpus were filed before the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice: on November 10, 2000, by Reyna Dionila Portillo in favor of Ana Julia and Carmelina Mejía Ramírez253 and by Margarita de Dolores Rivera de Rivera in favor of José Rubén Rivera254 and, on October 16, 2002, by María Maura Contreras in favor of Gregoria Herminia, Serapio Cristian and Julia Inés Contreras.255 160. The body of evidence reveals that once the applications for habeas corpus 248 Article 7(6) of the Convention establishes that: “[a]nyone who is deprived of his liberty shall be entitled to recourse to a competent court, in order that the court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his arrest or detention and order his release if the arrest or detention is unlawful. In States Parties whose laws provide that anyone who believes himself to be threatened with deprivation of his liberty is entitled to recourse to a competent court in order that it may decide on the lawfulness of such threat, this remedy may not be restricted or abolished. The interested party or another person in his behalf is entitled to seek these remedies.” 249 Cf. Habeas Corpus in Emergency Situations (Arts. 27(2), 25(1) and 7(6) American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-8/87 Geoff January 30, 1987. Series A No. 8, paras. 33 and 34; Case of Vélez Loor, supra note 13, para. 123, and Case of Anzualdo Castro, supra note 109, para. 77. 250 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro, supra note 109, para. 77, and Case of Vélez Loor, supra note 13, para. 123. 251 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-8/87, supra note 249, para. 35; Case of Chitay Nech et al., supra note 98, para. 203, and Case of Blanco Romero et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 28, 2005. Series C No. 138, para. 104. 252 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 23, para. 63; Case of Mejía Idrovo, supra note 19, para. 28, and Case of Vélez Loor, supra note 13, para. 129. 253 Cf. Application for habeas corpus filed by Reina Dionila Portillo before the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice on November 10, 2000 (evidence file, volume III, attachment 22 to the application, folios 2318 to 2321). 254 Cf. Application for habeas corpus, supra note 83 (evidence file, volume VI, attachment 27 to the pleadings, motions and evidence brief, folios 3918 to 3927). 255 Cf. Application for habeas corpus filed by María Maura Contreras before the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice on October 16, 2002 (evidence file, volume VII, attachment 37 to the pleadings, motions and evidence brief, folios 4543 to 4547), and Decision issued by the Constitutional Chamber, supra note 70 (evidence file, volume III, attachment 13 to the application, folio 2186).