14 the lawfulness of such threat, this remedy may not be restricted or abolished. interested party or another person in his behalf is entitled to seek these remedies. The 48. In its application, the Commission stated that "Ernesto Rafael Castillo-Páez was violently and arbitrarily arrested by agents of the Peruvian Government" in violation of Article 7 of the Convention. It added that his detention was effected "in disregard of the essential proceedings and requirements provided both in Peru's domestic legislation and in the Convention." It further stated that "in accordance with the statements of eyewitnesses, the abductors did not notify the victim of any charge against him or of any other reason for his detention" and that the State also violated Mr. Ernesto Rafael Castillo-Páez' right to recourse to a competent court for a decision as to the lawfulness of the arrest. 49. The Commission further stated that although habeas corpus is the appropriate means of locating someone allegedly detained by the authorities and of obtaining his release, in the instant case "it was ineffective in determining the victim's whereabouts inasmuch as the police authorities never furnished that information." 50. In its answer to the application, the State considered that "failure to determine a person's whereabouts does not necessarily mean that he has been deprived of his freedom; [that would constitute] a presumption of his unlawful detention or abduction, which is not legally admissible." It reiterated that the statements of the Commission's eye-witnesses were obtained by Judge Elba Minaya-Calle "improperly, as the Supreme Court of Justice of Peru found when it issued the Final Judgment of February 7, 1991," inasmuch as those persons did not know Ernesto Rafael Castillo-Páez , and "did not even identify the police car (patrol car) in which trunk he was allegedly placed". It further stated that said cars have their numbers painted in big characters in their rear bumpers and the hood of the trunk, which are visible from far away. 51. To demonstrate the lack of proof that it was police officers that had detained Mr. Castillo-Páez, the State submitted as attachments the statements made to the police by Mr. Genaro Huamán-Abad, Mr. Andrés Alberto Albay-Mallma, Mr. Luis Gómez-del Prado, and Mr. Wilmar Pablo Belleza-Napán, detained on the same date, in which they said that "there was no indication that any other detention or the detention of the student Ernesto Rafael Castillo-Páez was carried out [in the events of October 2, 1990]." 52. Furthermore, the State based its position on statements taken from police service personnel at the Villa El Salvador Precinct Station, and from staff of other units involved, to the effect that "during the police operation of October 21, 1990, the aforesaid student [had neither been] arrested nor detained." 53. As stated earlier, the Court deems to have been proven a number of facts relating to the detention of Mr. Ernesto Rafael Castillo-Páez (supra, para. 43). In this regard, of particular interest are the statements given by the eye-witnesses at the public hearing on February 6 and 7, 1997, who agreed that two policemen wearing green uniforms and red berets, traveling in a white patrol vehicle, violently detained Ernesto Rafael Castillo-Páez, identified by his appearance and his clothes, put him into the trunk of the vehicle and took him away to an unknown destination (supra, para. 30.b., c., and d.). 54. The State affirmed, both at the hearing and in its final arguments, that those witnesses were guilty of inconsistencies which invalidate their statements. However, the imprecisions indicated by Peru were not substantial, but merely concerned some details, including the number of the police vehicle, which could be explained, in the view of this