own will, and there are principles that must be respected to carry out such committal and detainment, which in case they are violated result in a direct breach of the dignity of the affected person. 216 109. The Constitutional Tribunal highlighted that in the present matter, Mr. Guachalá’s next of kin filed other actions before the Ombudsman and before the Public Ministry, without favorable results. Finally, it concluded the following: (…) it is inadmissible that in a State (…) a person remains disappeared for over two years, and it is less admissible that its organs do not coordinate the adequate actions to determine the whereabouts of the person. (…) Definitely, it is about leaving a door open, for the next of kin of the disappeared person to try this avenue, when they consider it appropriate, to definitely resolve the problem. This way, granting habeas corpus, can be determined not from its immediate effects, for the impossibility to produce them, but permanent, indistinct from their duration, for the justice that it represents to be able to count on an additional State body until the definitive resolution of the cause, the moment at which it can be considered closed. 217 110. The petitioners reported that in spite this resolution the Prosecutor’s Office did not adopt any measures to determine the whereabouts of Mr. Guachalá. 218 111. The petitioners stated that after the events of Mr. Guachalá, other in-patients have disappeared from that hospital. 219 The IACHR notes a flyer of the Ministry of Interior which indicates that a hospital inpatient, Álvaro Nazareno, disappeared from that institution on March 14, 2011. 220 V. LEGAL ANALYSIS A. Preliminary matter 112. On a preliminary basis the Commission notes that in its admissibility report it did not expressly include Articles 13, 24, or 26 of the American Convention among the rights that could be considered in the merits stage. Nonetheless, from the totality of arguments and evidence available in the merits stage, the IACHR considers it relevant to also analyze the facts established in light of the rights contained in those provisions. The Commission highlights that in both the admissibility phase and the merits phase the State learned of the facts on which the totality of the analysis that follows is based. By virtue of the foregoing, and in application of the principle of iura novit curia, the Commission will analyze whether in the instant case the State violated Articles 13, 24, and 26 of the American Convention 221 with respect to informed consent in relation to health care, the principle of equality and non-discrimination, and the right to health. Annex 13. Resolution of the Constitutional Tribunal, 6 July 2006. Annex 10 to the initial petition. Annex 13. Resolution of the Constitutional Tribunal, 6 July 2006. Annex 10 to the initial petition. 218 Communication of the petitioners received on May 25, 2011. 219 Public Hearing of the 157th Period of Sessions of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pG-hHzzZ-Y 220 Flyer of the Ministry of Interior. Annex to the documentation submitted by the petitioners during the Public Hearing of the 157th Period of Sessions of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. 221 The Inter-American Court has established that the inclusion of articles of the American Convention by the IACHR in the merits stage “does not entail a violation of the right to defense [of the State]” in cases in which the State has taken cognizance of the facts that are the basis of the alleged violation. See: I/A Court HR, Case of Furlan and family v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, para. 50. 216 217 18