17 62. The case file also contains photos and a video of the injuries suffered by Juan Arrom and Anuncio Martí after their release, where wounds can be seen in different parts of the body, in consistency with the medical reports.69 B. Actions taken by the next of kin and investigation of the facts B.1 Actions taken at the request of the next of kin 63. According to what the alleged victims stated, on January 19, Juan Arrom's sisters looked for him at the Ministry of the Interior, at police stations, at the National Police Headquarters, and at the Crime Investigation Department.70 On January 20, they visited Prosecutor Hugo Velázquez at the Luque Prosecutor's Office and Commissioner González Cuquejo at the Crime Investigation Department.71 On January 23, they went to the Paraguarí Artillery Command and to the Office for Vehicle Control of the National Police.72 After that, they went to the Office of the Archbishop, and then to Congress, where they were received by a senator, who summoned them so that the following day their case could be presented to the Permanent Commission of Congress.73 64. At the same time, on January 19, 2002, Cristina Arrom and Carmen Marina Arrom filed a petition for habeas corpus on behalf of their brother Juan Arrom, requesting that his release be ordered immediately. They indicated that, it had been stated in the media that he had been apprehended on Thursday, January 17, 2002, by authorities of the Police or the Ministry of the Interior and that he had been taken to the Ybycuí area.74 65. On January 20, the judge issued an official notice ordering the Ministry of the Interior and the National Police to inform whether Juan Arrom Suhurt was detained.75 In response, the Head of the Judicial Department, the Crime Investigation Department and the Minister of the Interior indicated that Juan Arrom was not detained.76 On January 22, the Arrom Suhurt sisters submitted a new brief reiterating that Mr. Arrom Suhurt was in the premises of state security organizations, without them being able to determine the exact place of detention.77 66. On January 23, 2002, the court decided to deny the request for habeas corpus.78 It indicated that “it had no certainty on whether Juan Francisco Arrom Suhurt had been deprived of his liberty.”79 It explained that the remedy of habeas corpus “is not oriented to avoid the modification of an existing factual situation, that is, the absence with unknown whereabouts of [Mr. Juan Francisco Arrom Suhurt - existing an order of deprivation of liberty ordered by a competent Cf. Photographs of the injuries of Juan Arrom Suhurt and Anuncio Martí Méndez (evidence file, fs. 221 to 236), and video 2 attached to the pleadings and motions brief. 70 cf. Witness statement of February 11, 2002, of María Auxiliadora Arrom Suhurt (evidence file, f. 4963); Testimony of February 11, 2002, by Cristina Arrom Suhurt (evidence file, f. 4967); Statement made by Cristina Arrom Suhurt on February 7, 2019 at the public hearing held in this case; Statement of Carmen Marina Arrom Suhurt rendered by affidavit presented before the Court (evidence file, fs. 13138 and 13139) 71 cf. Testimony of February 11, 2002, of María Auxiliadora Arrom (evidence file, f. 4963); Statement made by Cristina Arrom Suhurt on February 7, 2019 at the public hearing held in this case; Statement of Liza Liana Larriera Rojas rendered by affidavit submitted to the Court (evidence file, f. 13202), and Statement of María Auxiliadora Arrom rendered by affidavit submitted to the Court (evidence file, affidavits and expert opinions, f. 13159). 72 cf. Testimony of February 11, 2002, of María Auxiliadora Arrom (evidence file, f. 4964); Statement of June 21, 2002, of Ofelia Noemí Insaurralde Morel (evidence file, fs. 5929); Statement of María Auxiliadora Arrom rendered by affidavit submitted to the Court (evidence file, affidavits, and expert opinions, f. 13159), and Statement rendered by Cristina Arrom at the public hearing held in this case. 73 cf. Testimony of February 11, 2002, by María Auxiliadora Arrom (evidence file, f. 4964). 74 Cf. Final Judgment No. 4 of January 23, 2002 (evidence file, f. 504). 75 Interlocutory order No. 38 of January 20, 2002 (evidence file, f. 1151). 76 Cf. Final Judgment No. 4 of January 23, 2002 (evidence file, f. 504). 77 Cf. Final Judgment No. 4 of January 23, 2002 (evidence file, f. 506). 78 Cf. Final Judgment No. 4 of January 23, 2002 (evidence file, f. 507). 79 Cf. Final Judgment No. 4 of January 23, 2002 (evidence file, f. 506). 69