52 protection of personal or physical liberty, by means of the judicial mandate addressed to 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.262 The Court has considered that the remedy of habeas corpus, or the presentation of the person, is the ideal measure to guarantee liberty, monitor respect for life and personal integrity, and prevent an individual’s disappearance or uncertainty about his place of detention.263 In this regard, the Court’s case law has established that these remedies should not only exist formally in law, but should also be effective.264 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,265 the Court finds that, in application of the iura novit curia principle, which is repeatedly validated by international case law inasmuch as the judge has the authority, and even the obligation, to apply the pertinent legal provisions in a case, even when it is not expressly invoked by the parties,266 it is appropriate to assess the arguments related to the effectiveness of the habeas corpus actions in relation to the aforementioned provision, and not in relation to Article 25 of the Convention, as alleged by the representatives and the Commission and recognized by the State. 163. In the instant case, five habeas corpus actions were filed before the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court, one for each of the victims of forced disappearance, namely: on October 16, 2002, by Alfonso Hernández Herrera on behalf of José Adrián Rochac Hernández 267; on October 17, 2002, by María Adela Iraheta on behalf of Santos Ernesto Salinas;268 on November 15, 2002 by María Adela Hernández on behalf of Emelinda Lorena Hernández;269 on December 25, 2002 by María de los Ángeles Osorio on behalf of Manuel Antonio Bonilla;270 and on February 18, 2002, by Petronila Abarca Alvarado on behalf of Ricardo Abarca Ayala.271 164. The body of evidence reveals that once the applications for habeas corpus proceedings had been admitted, an executing judge was appointed for each case. As to the measures taken in the 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 on his behalf is entitled to seek these remedies.” Cf. Habeas Corpus under Suspension of Guarantees (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, paras. 33 and 34, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, supra, para. 157. 262 Cf. Habeas Corpus under Suspension of Guarantees (Arts. 27(2), 25(1) and 7(6) American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-8/87, supra, para. 35, and Case of García and Family v. Guatemala, supra, para. 142. 263 Cf. Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2010. Series C No. 218, para. 129, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, supra, para. 158. 264 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra, para. 77; Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, supra, para. 123, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, supra, para. 157. 265 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 163, and case Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 21, 2013. Series C No. 261, para. 92. 266 Cf. Writ of habeas corpus before the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court filed by Alfonso Hernández Herrera on October 16, 2002 (evidence file, volume IV, annex 11 to the submission of the case, folios 1890 to 1893). 267 Cf. Writ of habeas corpus before the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court filed by María Adela Iraheta on October 17, 2002 (evidence file, volume IV, annex 13 to the submission of the case, folio 1897). 268 Cf. Writ of habeas corpus before the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court filed by María Adela Hernández on November 15, 2002 (evidence file, volume V, annex 23 to the pleadings, motions and evidence brief, folio 2367). 269 Cf. Writ of habeas corpus before the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court filed by María de los Ángeles Osorio on December 25, 2002 (evidence file, volume V, annex 27 to the pleadings, motions and evidence brief, folio 2381). 270 Cf. Writ of habeas corpus before the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court filed by Petronila Abarca Alvarado on February 18, 2002 (evidence file, volume V, annex 31 to the pleadings, motions and evidence brief, folio 2438). 271