President of the Council in whose jurisdiction the detainee was being held, or with someone representing them. As is to be noted, this requirement cannot possibly be met in cases of arbitrary detention followed by forced disappearance. The petitioners did not know where Mr. Vásquez Durand was detained. Under that same rationale, it would be unfeasible to require the alleged victim to file a protection of liberty (amparo de libertad) action (paragraph 24, above), when the allegations refer to arbitrary detention followed by forced disappearance. 38. In this regard, according to the [inter-American] system’s jurisprudence, filing a petition for habeas corpus or similar relief constitutes the appropriate remedy in the search for an allegedly disappeared person.12 However, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter the I/A Court H.R. or "the InterAmerican Court" has also found that procedural requirements can make the writ of habeas corpus ineffective, if it is powerless to compel the authorities; if it presents a danger to those who invoke it; or if it is not applied impartially.13 39. Without prejudice to the above, in cases involving alleged arbitrary violations of the right to life, the appropriate remedy is an investigation and criminal proceedings initiated and promoted ex officio by the State with a view to identifying the perpetrators and imposing the corresponding punishments, in addition to paving the way for other forms of pecuniary reparation.14 On this, the IACHR has established that whenever an alleged crime has been committed with the participation of State agents, the State is obliged to initiate and promote criminal proceedings, which, in such circumstances, shall constitute the appropriate way to thrown light on the facts of the case, assign responsibility where applicable, and establish the applicable criminal sanctions, as well as other forms of reparation.15 It is through such criminal proceedings that internal remedies are best and most effectively pursued. 40. The Commission notes that, as of the date of this ruling, the State of Ecuador has reported, on the one hand, that, according to the Director of the Truth and Human Rights Commission, the case was barely at the "preliminary investigation"16 phase, while pointing out in a general manner that the National Directorate of Crimes against Life, Violent Deaths, Disappearances, Extortion and Kidnappings had conducted exhaustive inquiries into the case, without coming up with any findings. The State did not report, furthermore, whether any possibility of reparation for family members had been found. 41. Accordingly, the IACHR considers that, in the instant case, the exceptions provided for under Article 46 (2) (a and b) of the American Convention apply, in that (a) the domestic legislation does not afford due process of law for the protection of the right or rights that have allegedly been violated; (b) the party alleging violation of his rights has been denied access to the remedies under domestic law or has been prevented from exhausting them. [… continuation] invoke habeas corpus. This right is exercised by the person himself or through an intermediary, without the need for a written mandate, before the Mayor or President of the Council in whose jurisdiction he is located or before someone representing them. 12 The Inter-American Court has found that: " showing the person or habeas corpus would normally constitute the appropriate remedy or finding an allegedly disappeared person, ascertaining whether he or she is legally detained, and, where applicable. obtaining his or her release." I/A Court HR. Velásquez Rodríguez Case v. Honduras. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, paragraph 65. 13 See I/A Court H.R. Velásquez Rodríguez Case v. Honduras. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, paragraph 65. I/A Court H.R., Godínez Cruz Case v. Honduras. Judgment on the merits, January 20, 1989, para. 69. 14 See, IACHR. Report No. 23/07. Petition 435-06. Admissibility. Eduardo José Landaeta Mejías et al. Venezuela. March 9, 2007, paragraph 43. IACHR. Report No. 48/13 Petition 880-2011. Admissibility. Nitza Paola Alvarado Espinoza, Rocío Irene Alvarado Reyes, José Ángel Alvarado Herrera et al. July 12, 2013, paragraph 31. IACHR. Report No. 92/13. Petition 843-07. Admissibility. Agapito Pérez Lucas, Nicolás Mateo, Macario Pú Chivalán, Luis Ruiz Luis and family members. Guatemala. November 4, 2013, paragraph 25. 15 See IACHR, Report N° 52/97, Case 11.218, Argues Sequeira Mangas, Nicaragua, paragraphs 96 and 97; Report No. 57/00, Case 12.050, La Granja - Ituango, Colombia, October 2, 2000, paragraph 40; Report No. 88/09, Petition 405-99, Patricio Fernando Roche Azaña et al (Admissibility) Nicaragua, August 7, 2009. 16 Note of the State of Ecuador of October 29, 2003. p. 3. 7